Individual Retirement Account
59 karma · joined September 21, 2015
My opinion is that many apathetic people become that way because of being treated unfairly (in their view) or feeling helpless, and way less people become that way because of thinking too hard.
"Or worse, change their position thanks to millions of dollars ..."
Well, I see new data: lobbying $$$ that could make a previously trusted politician biased. Time to update my simplistic model on his related political ads to being less likely to true. There might be another politician who changed positions based on new or emerging body of evidence - maybe this person is more trustworthy this time. New data -> updated evaluation.
"the masses believe the lie, doesn't it become the truth"
I'm not familiar with post-modernism or Stoicism. But I sure hope that the proportion of people who believe one thing does not ultimately determine its truthfulness. The way I would initially simplify this is to rely on the likely proportion of unbiased people who hold one position versus the opposite. And by unbiased, I simplify that by not trusting greedy people, or people who have not studied the policy or history of it or other places who've tried different approaches. I think these initial simplifications will already cut down many viewpoints and voices that I do not need hear, in order to make an informed voting decision.
Anyway, the OP was about political ads that can affect how people vote, a decision to vote or not affects the community. Being agnostic about something (aliens) does not necessarily have the same gravity of effect as believing in a political ad.
I think people should be more comfortable with non-binary truth, based on the likelihood that something is a lie or not based on historical record. I would put more trust in a statement from someone with a record of telling unbiased truth versus someone with a record of frequently spewing lies or having ingrained bias.
Otherwise, if you don't make these types of initial simplifications, it becomes too complicated to start evaluating the truth of any statement, including scientific ones. And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data.
There is a danger in deferring a "truth" assessment: a community loses a sense of shared truth leading to polarization, doubt, confusion. And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative, which may be a lie after all.
Progressive versus regressive tax rate discussions are more typically based on the ratio of one household's tax to that household's earnings. In other words, how much of what I make goes to taxes? I think this make comparisons more fair and straightforward, instead of comparing the ratios of combined absolute taxes by group.
But it is hard not to see that extreme ideology drives the agenda of one or a few sides, while most sides are willing to compromise with reasonable, evidence-based solutions that the ideologists reject outright. It is irresponsible to say in that case that both sides are being unreasonable - that false equivalence promotes an unhealthy stalemate and gives cover to those who blindly delay progress.
Another way to ask this question is: were there volunteer transit, ride share, or pre/post-school care incentives included in your algorithm, to balance the potential negative impacts to parents?
His guilt over Russia involvement can be inferred by his constant obsession and attempts to discredit typical law enforcement investigation practices. It is a big deal to have a sitting president acting similar to how a guilty defendant would with (1) a video inviting computer hacking, (2) documented lies or rewrites of "official" statements about a Trump tower meeting of senior Trump campaign officials with the representatives of the invitees, (3) an announcement of an upcoming press briefing about contents (emails) of the hacking target made at the time of the meeting, (4) news reports of surveilled increase in hacker activities at the time of the hacking invite.
All of the above are not credit-giving or childish. At the same time, an alternative of explaining government policies and trade numbers would likely not get through the electorate, and in my opinion unlikely to change hardened or media-saturated minds.
My viewpoint is that those who are quick to trample on the weakest, including endangered animals, will likely find it easy to trample on the rights of the poor. It is not in my interest to support that potential future where might makes right. Both my interests and non-human interests can be served at the same time, with no conflicts if viewed in the long term.
It seems you are viewing industrial, monoculture farming techniques as a justification for what humans should be able to get away with as far as land or resource use. It is not at all self-evident that such an approach works best. There is an opposite viewpoint that traditional, diverse crop farming could produce higher quality, higher nutrition output without using too much inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
My point is that you seem to conveniently accept the "obvious superiority" of a modern approach and ignore other viewpoints or approaches wherein biodiversity fits in naturally.
Edit: The book has lots of historical details about competing early technologies such as the OSI vs TCP/IP, C vs well-structured languages, Archie/WAIS/Gopher, attempts from different parts of the world such as AlohaNet in Hawaii and Minitel in France. That's just a sampler, but the story telling does not get too bogged down with too much details and moves along at a quick pace.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Web-was-Born-Story/dp/0192862073
You make a very unemotional, well reasoned and logical argument, I see.
I honestly think if we met in person we could laugh about this, and I would back off the emphathy angle a bit. It's just that the original question that I replied to was "must we" with regards to another group of people, and it's hard to explain why we must do so without looking at it from the other side.
The way I see it, one group is arguing from a place of historical hardship, and the other is arguing from a place of privilege. I don't mean someone growing up poor in Appalachia as being privileged simply because s/he is white; to me, that historical background definitely counts towards raising diversity. I'm just trying to put myself in other people's shoes. It's not necessarily about race or ethnicity or recentness of oppression, it's the compounded interest of those oppressions and inability to rise out of that enforced debt. Our institutions have to factor that historical indebtedness.
Unless you really put yourself in another person's shoes, I honestly don't think this discussion will go anywhere. I mean, imagine growing up poor in a single household family, going to lowly ranked high schools, being disproportionately more likely to be stopped over and imprisoned for minor offenses, and getting questioned about academic abilities constantly.
Having said that, I still hope that the difference in priority and importance is obvious between: (a) correcting the impacts of hundreds of years of systematic outright denial of opportunity in all aspects of life, and (b) a top school's rejection of an applicant who do not belong to an under-represented group and who will likely get admitted in another top school or another very good school.
As an Asian who've experienced discrimination first hand, I am saddened that necessary differences in the gravity of error correction, as applied to group discrimination, is not obvious to everyone. Correcting the effects of slavery is much more important because its effects are much more pervasive. Getting rejected by a top school is not as dire for a group as a while, especially for someone in a group that is not even a minority at those schools. But I could see how someone could say what you said (but hopefully with at least a bit of explanation to back it up?).
Although the "denial of opportunity" seem systematic in both cases - Asians applying to Ivy League schools and enslaved African Americans in my examples - the latter is not due to space constraints. In contrast, Asians have not been or are under-represented. To me, that fact justifies a top school's effort to make access fairer to historically under-represented groups, whose cultural tendencies have been shaped long-term by outright denial.
Asians have not been systematically denied entry to the NBA for hundreds of years. I do not deny that there are ethnic differences or cultural priorities. But if a group of people has been systematically told for a very long time that they cannot achieve anything beyond being a slave, then that oppressed group would probably not bother to engage in technical or scientific pursuits, nor would they have time to pursue higher education because they were not allowed to do so.
Think about that: a group of people have been systematically given a chance to prove themselves, while another group was systematically prevented from doing the same. It's a systemic issue that requires a comprehensive solution. It must start with assuming the very assumption that you are questioning, since how else could start from a clean slate?
(1. And no, race blindness is not starting from a clean slate, it's denying the systematically-imposed disadvantages that already exists. 2. Your examples posing asians against blacks and asians rub me the wrong way, a bit like race baiting although I don't know you enough or the tone of your explanations to say for sure.)
I have worked remotely for a number of years, and it's not for everyone. I didn't like it until after I got used to the loneliness and would look forward to going to the office. To repeat an observation from another reply, not all jobs can be performed from a remote location.
I used to be a pro-telecommuting as a long term solution. But having experienced telecommuting and also car-optional cities, I've since changed my stance. There is a big difference between online buzz and the buzz of being in the middle of a busy, safe mixed-use neighborhood.
I disagree with the above sentiments, despite those being excellent reasons or attitudes to choose a field/calling/career. It is not necessary for others to arrive at a path in the same way that other people do. It is entirely possible that the burning desire, inclination, and careful choice occur after being accepted into a program or after more exposure into a coding environment. It is also very likely that such desire, inclination, and choice are discouraged by not having relatable peers or role models. I would find it much harder to fit and grow into a role if from the very beginning I was expected to already have inclinations and reasons that are similar to my coworkers.
I'm not sure why you insist on finding fault with what I understand or not, or what you wrongly imagine my reaction is to this article. It's possible to appreciate stories like that without being shallow or sensationalist. At the same time, it is possible to be unnecessarily dismissive about something when the focus is solely on technical aspects and lose the bigger picture of what a story is about.
I think we agree that truly unique discoveries or inventions are extremely rare. I did not get the sense that the article framed the islander's number system as such. It's okay to disagree if you see the framing differently.
The main point is that the finding in the article has cultural significance, rather than purely in terms of mathematics. I think you either don't understand that or are not willing to see that. The article is not trying to elevate a Polynesian people's contribution to mathematics. There is little mathematical significance there as these people from 600 years did not celebrate or promote their number system. Rather, the article explores how mathematical knowledge arises and how it was used. Could there an underlying commonality in the way humans learn and organize knowledge? That's an interesting question to ask and is not diminished - but is in fact supported - by the fact that the same knowledge gets rediscovered in multiple isolated instances.
Is it an important finding? I think so. It helps shed light on the scientific and technical originality of other cultures. It matters a lot to acknowledge that knowledge does not always flow from west to east or north to south. It helps to rid of the notion of there being 'advanced' and 'primitive' cultures.
Are the scientists from the "Department of Psychosocial Science" trying too hard to make that case? I don't think so. Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Apparently mathematicians would not agree but even so, should they dictate that I should be dismissive of this article as well? The way I see it, the article does not make outrageous or unfounded claims. I'm free to appreciate that numbers have a certain universality as an abstract concept or language that isolated people from different era and backgrounds naturally converge to.
I had thought that the convenient form factor of lighter, less frills tablets would make them continually more appealing to kids or less technical adults regardless of where the device is used. But that does not seem to be the preferred case in a school setting, especially as a student gets older. I think it reflects a desire to be taken more seriously, and the appearance of the tools being used matters a lot, even if the same type or quality of work could be done using a Chromebook or iPad.
Reducesuffering simply stated that some programming tools were taught in the first years of college and he or she did not say his curriculum excluded any of the topics in your list.