sixstringbudha

>It's amazing how easy it is to get the majority of people to completely shut down their critical thinking abilities. In this case, it only took 3 words.

One amusing thing I have noticed is that how fast all of the internet got converted into google catcha system which was originally supposed to convert books, but now a days just show traffic lights, cars, buses and fire hydrants. And no one, bats an eye. And even worse, still calls google the "good guy".

Do you know how many images it makes you click if you try to access it with a clean state?

over the air updates, like most things in marketing is a sign of incompetence, even they are marketed as a positive.

In reality it means that they the company is OK to ship broken/half baked stuff (owning to some kind of market pressure), because they can always fix it over the air.

When I see things like these, I always think. Oh look, another thing that will eventually get bought out.

I mean, I woulnd't want to depend on one of these things unless the people behind them has shown a enough defiance against the buying power of money.

>Parents can be rather selfish too, most can't wait until their kids turn 18 and leave the house. The want to live alone too.

This is the worst aspect of it. The hypocrisy! When I was young and naive, I believed parents loved to have the kids around. Oh boy. Don't they right? The only problem is that they want us still to be kids, and won't leave the household to you and let you live a full adult life there. If you are going to live with them, they want you to depend on them, and they want you to let them be the one who runs the house. All the sob stories you hear, when you are growing up, about kids leaving their parents won't tell you that side of the story.

So if you are a kid in the same situation, and have philosophical/ideological difference about how to life a human adult life, DO NOT PLAN ON living with your parents if objectively they don't need it. Don't do it becuase of some romantic notion of the "right thing" that the mainstream narrative has fed you. *ITS FUCKING BULLSHIT!"...

What a crappy article and an equally crappy title.

> Some days I would go to bed 3am, others I would sleep until 2pm.

There is your problem. Don't blame it on being remote. If you don't have the discipline, you will find that you ll hard time making a lot of things in life work..

>Can you suggest an environment conducive to life that isn't exposed to EM radiation? Life itself creates EM radiation.

There is nothing in the definition of "life" that warrants an ability to observe EM radiation or create it for that matter..By the way, what is the definition of "life" that you are using here?

>there are fundamental forces left to be discovered then they are not having any observable effect on the world..

So just because we haven't discovered something, does it mean that that thing is not observable at all? We are still discovering "things" in our own body, let alone in the entire world. The fallacy that human beings are capable of detecting every observable (by observable, I did not mean observable with our current tech) phenomena in this world is exactly what I was indicating before.

> nature of reality remains constant regardless of the data amassed.

It does not remain constant. But it remains indeterminable. Ie we can say we know something about the universe. But we cannot say we know x % of the universe simply because we have no way of knowing what 100% is...

> as long as we lived somewhere EM existed had a noticeable effect, which is just about everywhere.

You should have understood that I meant otherwise. Of course, if we could notice the effect of EM, that could trigger an investigation eventually leading to the discovery.

>we know our sensory understanding has sever limits...

Did you really think I implied that no one knows the limits of our built in senses? When I said sensory capabilities I meant the stuff we can sense, directly or indirectly (By indirectly, I mean by the help of another device, to make it very clear).

That is because we could "see" it. Imagine if we were not able to see. Could we have known the existence of EM?

Or think if we were not able to hear. Could we have imagined the sensation of sound, or the concept of music?

Human beings are so pathetically stupid that they think that their intelligence and sensory capability are at the limits of what is possible.

Ghost..is the word you are looking for.

>. It's been done to death..

You are missing the point. I am not saying Php is crap for the people already who know it. I am saying Php is crap for people who are new to programming and don't know to stay away from Php yet...I thought I made it clear in the last comment.

Some statements might warrant citations, while some might not. That is your argument, right?

Given! Now, hop along your merry way!

>Am I crazy or does this seem like an extremely cynical attempt to get more phone numbers?

Yes it does. The normal Gmail interface I get now has a forgot password link which is by default activated after I enter the username. I have to explicitly jump over that to continue entering the actual password and thus to my mail box.

>If he had disclosed all his conflicts, the same research would have been published in the same places with the same people. Nothing would have changed.

Speculation.

> Nobody really cares or pays much attention.

Maybe they should.

>When it comes to clinical trials, there are many checks and balances that prevent a 'rogue' conflicted investigator from influencing the results.

And you think these checks and balances work good enough, most of the time?

I have a similar explanation to this dropping hormone levels phenomenon.

It is simply just that it does not require to be a 'manly man' in these days to have the same amount of "success", as it required in the old times. For example, take the whole mating game. Earlier, you had to look good/manly, need some quick thinking, timing and wit to pick up women. But now those things are not so much required.

I think multiple factors have contributed to this. But I think the all encompassing one is capitalism. And things like these are the an emergent result, of trying to maximize profits, and thus it is molding the very source that it generate the profit from, namely the human population. Simply put, much less profits can be made from a manly (manliness being comprised of things like but not limited to, looks, having some individuality, own principles and views and a taste for independence) and intelligent population than it can be made from a feeble/stupid, but heavy earning population. I am not saying that there is some conspiracy that is trying to accomplish this. But it might be a case of a death by a thousand paper cuts. I mean, like every time you try to sell something to the public, by social conditioning, you might be inadvertently contributing to things like this...

>but the book doesn't claim that time doesn't exist.

Why are people so hung up on the question whether 'x' exist or not without actually having a proper idea of what it mean for something to "exist"?

> "soften" the principles of science.

How can it soften the principles of science, if it does not masquerade as science. Can you point me in the article where it tries to pass some mysticism or philosophy as science?

Did quoting R.Feynman was part of your plan? Because I don't see no other point for your original comment other than to eventually quote R.Feynman.

A: I like x

B: I don't like x

A: Why?

B: Because it is not science

A: Why is that bad?

B: It is not. Because R.Feynman said blah blah blah...

A: ??

Everything was "not science" before it became "science". So what is your point?

>It seems to care more about evoking some mystical and philosophical idea of the universe

What is wrong about mystical, philosophical idea of the universe? I like mystical, philosophical idea of the universe.

> Indian companies will work more closely with the Indian government for more oppressive surveillance of its people.

And having the source open and reviewable does not help with that? The problem with depending on is - this might not be apparent in a short term - is that it allows foreign control over the matters here.

Basically what you are asking is something like asking to be ruled by a foreign power. Because local rulers might pushed around easily by pushed around by local corruption and influence.

Basically there is potential for oppression either way. Do you prefer it to be by your own people or foreign powers?

>likely make a censored version for India if they see it as a big enough market. Hey presto, the worst of both worlds!

I don't know because It looks like that is the worst of the both worlds to me..

> No, a related disadvantage doesn't nullify the fact of an advantage.

Sure it does in some cases. Having a lot of gold is an advantage. Having to keep from being stolen is a disadvantage. That disadvantage does not nullify the advantage of having it. But if no one wants gold anymore, then that nullify the advantage of possessing it.

>Doesn't change the fact that this is an advantage.

Maybe, but I think it is an advantage very few real world car users care..

> I'm not really interested in discussing this further;

Cool. I hope you don't mind my reply though.

> You're really shifting the goalposts.

Not really. Its just that I (and most people today) see a car as something that can take them mostly anywhere, across the country. If you see or limit the definition of a car as something that takes you anywhere within a very limited fixed radius (the range of your car on a single recharge), then your argument is fine. With a car, If you have to think of "Can I refuel where I want to go", then that car is lost the race against ICE's by a long mile.

>So because you don't think it's an improvement, then it's not an improvement for anyone?

Who said I am speaking for everyone here? I was only speaking of my case.

> Cost of fueling - electricity is cheaper than gas.

Nullified by the fact that charging stations are scarce AND that it takes a lot of time to finish a charge. People drive cars so that they can get somewhere faster. It does not help if they have to hunt around for a charging stations and have to wait an hour to get charged.

We can consider the cost difference to be a concrete advantage, when and only when the infra for electric charging is on par with a fuel refill.

> Lower cost of ownership - electric cars are mechanically much simpler than ICE cars, which means better reliability and less money spent for maintenance/repairs.

I don't think this is a given. Even though more complex, I think ICE cars of today are quite reliable enough. Are there any studies that compare both and say Electric cars are indeed more reliable than an average ICE car? I am not sure how reliable this is, but [1]

> more controllable torque curves than even the best ICE

Oh I am perfectly fine with the torque curve of an ICE. I am not racing on the roads, you know. With automatic transmissions, this is even less of an issue.

[1] https://www.policygenius.com/blog/how-much-does-it-actually-...

> As an Indian citizen, my only hope is that foreign tech companies resist the crippling moves by the executive...

As an India citizen, why are you not hoping that Indian developers and government grow competent enough to built software with quality that is at par with foreign software?

As an Indian citizen, I find this deeply troubling. We have a lot of software developers here, but what is the dynamics by which government software turn out to be crappy? (Btw, I think irctc raily ticket booking is a work of art) I think instead of pushing against the laws, we should be pushing for more quality in software used by the government. Make the development of such software to be open, and reviewable..

> There are so many obvious benefits of electric cars, as soon as they are close to cost competitive.

Like what exactly? You will have to assume that I am a modern man who don't give two shits about the environment, when deciding to buy a car. So can you give me one significant advantage that an electric car will give me over an ICE car, right now?

> Changing one's environment is usually hard work, and a real learning experience.

Mmmmm..I am not sure. It seems to me that adapting oneself to a given environment would be far more worthy a learning experience (might be harder as well). I think one should try to find faults in themselves, and fix them, before fixing or outright moving to a different environment.

Imagine a rock that is getting polished. If the rock is given the choice of the file, ending up moving from rougher to smoother until it is comfortable, it will never get polished, right?

> since other characteristics can and do change a lot, especially with a targeted effort to change them.

Some attributes can be changed, some, on the other hand, not so much.

> You had all this before social media. In school I have been made fun of, I have been beaten, people have stolen from me and destroyed my properties. They made pranks, used peer pressure and had huge vanity and popularity contests, while all playing the conformity game..

I think the difference is that social media gives a number by which that your success can be measured.

> social medias just magnify the characteristics of the existing society.

But the problem is that it does in an unnatural way that is prone to various kinds of manipulations. In other words it awards dishonesty. Some examples are posting an heavily edited photo, or not posting something that you want for fear of negative karma etc..

> you don't have the ability to change environment,

I don't know, but it looks like having an ability to change the environment as one wishes will only result in stunned growth..

> your IQ absolutely increases with education.

Then I am not sure if it is actually measuring intelligence.