winfred

>Does that mean Americans are poor people who can only afford empty calories?

I don't know if it's because they can't afford better or don't want to eat better, but in the US there is a considerable relationship between income/education and obesity. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be obese. 50% of the US makes less than $30k a year, and that group probably amounts to somewhere around 75% of the obese people.

https://www.stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/

Private prisons only amount to 8.4% of the prison system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Ssssssttt.

Don't wake the children yet.

>i learned about 5 years ago that changing peoples' minds is an impossible, pointless task.

And you learned the wrong thing. It is possible to change peoples minds and behavior with online conversation. It just isn't easy and it doesn't go quick (a single line directly pointing out a flaw often isn't enough, you have to bring across that you exerted effort, to show you care). If over time enough people invest time and effort into pointing out that you are wrong in something, you will change your mind. You might not admit it, you might not even notice it, but it will happen.

You might be right that it is perhaps not the fastest or most efficient approach, when you suggested spending time and money on actually influential things (though I'm not sure what you have in mind there).

Just look at the responses you have received so far here. Several people with different backgrounds have responded to you and said "you are wrong, you can change people's minds in online social interactions".

Now you have a choice. Will you hold on to your (really not very good for mankind as a whole) statement, so that it self-fulfills and you can still consider your own opinion correct and your thoughts and behavior consistent?

Or will you take that leap and believe people can change and act accordingly going forward?

Edit: I hope you realize that if you respond to my plea with a convincing statement and I believe you and change my mind, we both enter seriously troubled waters.

After all, do you really want to change my mind on the fact that one cannot change someone's mind in a social media setting, in a social media setting?

>To which the response is who are Google to influence how or what people think?

But they are already doing just that. I watched a few Youtube videos related to Quantum Mechanics and my recommended queue was flooded with videos full of pseudo scientific nonsense.

It took me considerable effort in having these weird videos no longer recommended to me. I think we can just be honest about what caused it, it's a lack of intelligence in the sorting algorithm, that currently isn't able to distinguish between true and false statements.

I understand there are areas where this line is vague, but if I watch a few videos about astronomical events, why am I getting recommendations about aliens visiting earth?

Haha, thanks buddy, I didn't know websites could trigger nostalgia. Brings back memories from twenty years ago, amazing it's still around with the exact same layout.

These radio telescopes have a fairly narrow focus and when two telescopes located on different continents aim at a source several billion light years away, their focal points do not overlap anywhere near earth, so that rules out anything on or near earth. You could come up with a theory where it does originate on earth, but it wouldn't pass Occam's razor.

Here you go: http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/scien...

Mining wasn't banned until 1991. And as the article outlines, Antarctica is a really, really inhospitable place, to the point that it might be easier to colonize a different planet than to colonize Antarctica (I'd probably prefer equatorial Mars over Antarctica) and even mineral extraction would be very complicated.

Or obscuring the source. If I wanted to cause a Chinese-North Korea conflict, I'd do it in a way that gives me enough time to tie up loose ends and points in a certain direction.

Same with Litvinenko. We will never find out the true story. Was it a message? Probably. But from who to who? Might have been FSB, but there were plenty of other parties that really didn't like Litvinenko and could have used Russian Polonium either to blame the FSB or to tell the FSB not to fuck with them, because they had the means to blame them for random hits (or a million other possible reasons).

>As for why this discrepancy exists, that's really a very different question, and it's one that I don't know the answer to.

That's caused by IQ distribution differences between males and females. On average men and women have an IQ of 100, but there are more men that are both smarter and dumber than women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...

Nvidia, Intel, YKK, Standard Oil.

I worry about the same things he does and I also lean towards his approach (although I'm not as involved as he is). Think of it like this, if you're worried a certain technological development will change life in ways you do not think are beneficial, isn't the best defense against that to develop that technology yourself before others do, so you not only know exactly what it effectively is capable of as well as being able to shape the way it develops from a technological, legal and narrative perspective?

>We need 40 lashes instead of 2 years in prison.

Masochists all over the world support your cause.

I think you stopped watching half way through. If you'd watch the rest of the documentary, they provide some details on how that "finders fee" was paid, it was paid out in contracts to one of the judges side businesses and then distributed to other companies to finally end up in the pockets of the judges. Does that sound like a honest "finders fee" to you? I don't care how the judges in question formulated it, the method by which the money was laundered clearly shows the maliciousness of their intent. They even admit it by stating they laundered the money both to avoid taxation and because they "knew it would look bad".

>Successful candidates should clearly demonstrate that their priorities are company, team, and self — in that order. This makes it more likely that they’ll put the company’s mission above their individual interests and that they’ll set the proper example for others.

Ah. I understand. So there are people that will set a company/team above their own interest and are reasonably intelligent at the same time?

They're just looking for good liars, nothing else.

I'm probably classified as intermediate in 3d design and printing. It takes a while to get it right, there are so many factors that influence the outcome, so initially it might seem like the failures are random.

Thingiverse models frequently have issues, but you get used to opening them up, checking dimensions and fixing errors in the STLs.

When designing, at some point you get used to the fact that it takes two or three iterations to get it right. I frequently print partial models nowadays (or smaller versions of the final), featuring whatever needs to fit and then going back into the design software and completing the model.

Then there's the whole "what's the printer up to" thing, is the PLA not too old, is my printer properly calibrated, did the slicer do its job properly. That just takes time to understand as well (having a quality printer here helps as well).

Just keep going at it and eventually it all starts falling into place and you get faster and faster at designing as well as incorporating others STLs into your own designs and printing them.

>Is it possible for a person to simply "think" themselves into a certain states or flavors of insanity, or rather the more proper term, mental illness?

Of course it is possible to think yourself mentally ill. Paranoia, various phobias require nothing more than negative thought spirals (not to mention eating disorders).

Yeah to be honest, I considered that myself as well, if we take that approach then 100% of internet services do not qualify as public goods (and never will), since it's always possible to limit the service in such a manner.

being a public good isn't a binary state, it's a continuum. I think there are internet services that approach the theoretical definition of a public good (non-rivalrous and non-excludable) close enough to consider them actual public goods.

Edit: I'll give you am example that might fit the definition: DNS

Then in 10 years, someone, somewhere decides that 90 is acceptable on a specific road. Now all cars with limiters need to be modified. Want to be able to change it remotely? Now you add an attack vector. Throw in a GPS? Now you're asking for additional government monitoring that is mandatory and might be (will be) used for spying purposes.

It isn't as much the fact that the asset will move, as the direction and the timeline that matters, as well as the availability of investment vehicles. If I'd wanted to profit on the knowledge that coal will go down, I'd have to short the stock which isn't free, so it is important for me to know on what time frame it will go down (if I knew it would go up, but not on what time frame, it would work just fine). Another example, I know lithium (the commodity) is going to go up, but 90% of the lithium market is dominated by 3 companies, each of which get less than 20% of their revenue from lithium mining, meaning I have no way of profiting from my knowledge.

I totally agree. Although I must add, that I've recently shifted more towards the much more ancient and even much more prominent Astrology. Astrology is both far older and has a solidly proven track record, particularly in the field of finding compatible couples (as still used frequently in India).

Hmmm I can invest my capital in 30 countries easily with a carefully selected index fund. If I could move across borders freely, it would be hard (if not impossible) to do the same thing. So I'd say it isn't the same footing that applies.

"One such story was from a couple who were out of town when their furnace went nuts and raised the temperature in the house high enough that it melted every piece of plastic in the entire home."

There's just no way that a home furnace can generate enough heat to do that. Sounds like scaremongering to me.

I worked in large data centers before and I just don't see how this can be done practically. Data centers require quite a bit of physical maintenance.

Every computer design has some element that will render a large part of the design inoperable in case of failure. Either it is a SAN head (even if you have two, the fail over can malfunction), or a switch setup.

Then there are things like failures of simultaneously purchased components (hard drives purchased at the same time, that are worked the same load will roughly fail at the time).

What makes you think the Chinese aren't equally irrational?

The main uses for satellites are observation and communication. Both are appealing markets for HAPS. Hovering drones could act as relays for telephone calls and internet traffic in places that do not have good enough infrastructure on the ground. And there is never a shortage of customers who would like to snoop on various parts of the Earth’s surface, whether for commercial or military reasons.(fta)

I'm not sure you get all the nuances of the story. Caesar is just as nuts as Vladimir Putin, who goes bear hunting bare chested.

It's just a piece of political propaganda that has survived through the ages, all the way until today. There are more examples in this day and age, for example the myths surrounding Alexander the Great.

If that's the case (and it doesn't seem that unlikely to me), I think a thank you is in order.

Thanks buddy!

Thanks. I've updated my information and I've sent you an email.