25 karma · joined August 22, 2018
I had a similar reaction when I read that line. I mean how does one correlate number of years of education to intelligence, which is already a somewhat abstract concept. That is like saying "If you wear this makeup, your partner will love you as if they were married to you twice as long"..
Which is true most of the time..
I mean, people getting into an automobile for no good reason also thinks that they won't be the one that would end up dying or maimed in an accident. I mean, aren't we all guilty or dumb in that way?
There is another way. Make a religion out of it. Make it a sin to do harm to the environment.
Yet another way. Replace every ad (Google ads can be a good start) with environment friendly message, Replace all billboards with a message to drive less, drive less, or consume less generally. "Do you really need that SUV?", "Do you really need to buy a new car". Mandate by laws that companies should make stuff repairable and should provide spare parts and operation manuals. Maybe they can compensate by hiking initial price.
Fix human behavior with human behavior.
Bigger buffer does not always mean big enough. That is why rich work to make more and more money. It is never enough. You don't know how much money might be required to save you in a future calamity. After a certain point, no amount of money might be able to save you. Then you need to keep people on power on payroll. And they, in turn, will be going through the same thing, demanding more and more money.
The point is, A buffer is not never big enough, if the rate of drain can be arbitrarily high, which is the case for human existence in the current economic makeup.
So you see, once you are rich, there is not stopping.
Actually there is. If someone thinks that, "This is enough. What I have is the buffer I am willing to store for future calamities. For me and my descendants". But I doubt rich people ended up being rich thinking like that. Or if someone is stupid/naive to not see things as they are. Then they will spend themselves to bankruptcy anyway.
Then either they ll kill themselves or grow wise, and might grow rich and go the first path the second time.
Sadly, I think there is huge incentive to maintain status quo. It is essentially a loophole to manipulate the scientific consensus without the actual scientists being dishonest. Some wise once said "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.". I think that what we call as "science" today, has thus that fallen prey to this.
Is it not?
1. Having something comes with the risk of loosing it.
2. with risks comes the potential to add worry.
3. People with more to lose have more potential to be worried about it
How is my reasoning flawed?
The only thing you cannot lose is your past. You might lose the memory of it, but that does not nullify it's existence.
Can you clarify in concrete terms what the closed source development and 0.19 thing had cost you?
Sure. Some people are afraid of public speaking. But some people on the other hand, can't wait to get in front of people. But I think it wouldn't be too off to say people are generally afraid of public speaking.
So generally, the more you have to lose, the more you will worry. Simple. If you want to refute that, argue logically why it might not be the case, instead of just "I am rich, and you are wrong". Please.
I don't think so. If you have a lot of money, there will be constant pressure upon you about ways to spend it or invest it "wisely". And you ll always will have the fear of "ruining everything". If you choose to do nothing with it, you ll be blamed for not investing it or making it grow.
Not to mention that you will have a hard time differentiating associates who are just there for a piece of the cake.
And you think that is free of toxins?
>Yes, I did for everything I said in the previous post at the bottom. I even numbered them.
No. You said air pollution around the world is vastly superior now. The link you provided said "People are dying from pollution sustain during the 70s". If you don't see the difference, then I wish you a good day and let us drop this conversation.
No mortal being have unlimited time at their disposal. Very few have the fortitude and discipline and above all, guts, to use it for realizing what ever "dream" that they have.
We all have responsibilities. But some does not hide behind them.
Who said pollution did not exist back in 1970. Just that it was more feasible to get stuff that you know that is not polluted. From local produce or farmed yourself.
> Air quality around the world is vastly superior to the 70s (people are still suffering because of it?
Oh yea? Can you provide some citations. By what factor have the number of automobiles multiplied?
> Your 4k TV today can still play Abba or boney M.
You are missing the point. The point is that the technology to consume art is irrelavant if the art produced is low quality in itself. I mean, where is M-tv today?
>There is also plenty of great music being produced now that can easily be found.
Oh yea? Again, where is M-Tv then? It's been ages since a new song have really captured my attention.
Do I also get a dozen brothers and sisters? Eat food, drink water and breath air without having to constantly worry about being them polluted or toxic?
> would only have a black-and-white TV with 4 stations and a gramophone record player..
Sure. I would rather have a gramaphone record player or cassete player (which is more like 70s i think) that played ABBA or BoneyM than a 4k lcd tv that plays Lady gaga or Justine beiber or what ever crap that is "trending" today.
Fooling themselves is perfectly possible with controls and blind tests too..
LYAH may not be the greatest Haskell tutorial. But it makes an easy read. That means, you are not afraid to go back to it again and again, Which is the crucial aspect of learning anything sufficiently complex or new or both..