yontherubicon

I typed in "It was a dark and stormy night" and didn't get any reference to Paul Clifford or Washington Irving.

I dig the project. I think it's cool. Would love to see it grow.

You know you can get the cloud implementation for free, right?

When you create a website, and it gets users, that's what you want, right? But now your massive number of users become a problem. You need to scale to handle the number of users.

Same thing with wealth creation. Too much wealth creation is the problem, the same way having too many users is the problem. It's a good problem. It's a problem you're delighted to have. But it is a problem, and one you have to solve.

Disclaimer: I have very little idea how to get SF to scale. I don't even live there.

Mirror: http://www.sdailynews.com/2018/08/27/researchers-replicate-j...

For those who can't climb the paywall.

Is it just me or is this terrible advice?

What?

Doctoral programs pay you through stipends. You shouldn't have to pay for any doctoral program, ever.

If they had a separate site, media.amazon.com or something, which led to this page: https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=lp_2858778011_nav_shopall_aiv?r...

then it'd fix the issue you're having with them at the moment. It's a really simple fix.

Sure, but emissions testing after you've got the car would be utterly useless.

>it pisses off trade partners who may not act as rationally as you expect

It forces trade partners to lower their own protections, resulting in freer trade than before. People respond to incentives.

>it might not be possible to manufacture an iPhone without cheap labour

Automation.

> Also manufacturing jobs are crap.

Manufacturing provided decent jobs for many American men feeding their families. Next you'll tell me that trucking is terrible and we should get rid of that too. Schumpterism is probably a necessary trait for ambitious people, but don't be cavalier about jobs that provide respectable livelihoods to normal people.

Is your country not sharing in the spoils? I'm not saying that offensive wars are moral, but it is in keeping with your duties to the group.

And certain offensive wars are for the common defense, usually against neighboring countries over scarce resources, or against other imperial powers.

Not what I'm referring to. I'm referring specifically to those who owned land and bore arms and were referred to as Citizens in Rome.

I find both the notions that conscription=slavery and that taxation=theft can only be held by someone who does not believe in any sort of duty or obligation to one's community, country, nation, or God, and that self-interest must necessarily be one's sole (or at least primary) motivating factor.

Was referring to the Romans. Perhaps I'm exaggerating.

My point is that military service is a responsibility, not a chore foisted upon us. If it were, we would be subjects. But we are not subjects, we are citizens.

All true. And yet still we have to grapple with the reality that our public square is in the private sector.

Citizenship has historically been defined by military service, in that you are not merely subject to the security apparatus of the state, but a part of it. Because you are a part of it, you have a say in it. It was the removal of the draft which necessarily removed the role of service from citizenship.

What do people who are not a part of the military care about non-intervention? There is a reason we viliify the draft-dodger who becomes a politician and sends others sons off to war.

>There's a reason the ACLU has in the past defended neo-Nazis and other unpopular speakers, and it's not because they support these speakers' messages. It's because you need a canary in the coal mine.

People aren't mentioning this, but this has already happened.

I'm not white, just to be clear, however back sometime last year I knew infrastructure-level censorship was coming when DNS services, GoDaddy in particular, started censoring sites. The canary in the coalmine was the Daily Stormer.

It's one thing to want them to be quiet. It's another thing to set the precedent of infrastructure forcing them to be quiet. As you said, it sets a precedent.

EDIT: DNS censorship has indeed been mentioned in this thread.

That is, I'm afraid, against the law in this country.

>The right response is to ask how and why Trump won and address the problems, ideas, and arguments that led to it rationally.

Absolutely.

> If Jones' BS is more "viral," then more rational thinkers need to learn how to play the viral game.

There's an inherent danger here. Viral media is in many ways a short-attention span, high time preference sort of game. It's probably not conducive to a high level of discourse. It is IMO a race to the bottom, much the same way fast-food restaurants compete. Eventually, you need to open up a Whole Foods or two.

This doesn't work without a universal moral law, an assumption now deprecated in many circles.

#Try a different book

Oftentimes the assigned textbooks are subpar. Less Wrong has a good list of textbooks. Quora questions have also been helpful

#How much of your time studying is actually spent studying?

You may need to spend less time studying.

You might spend six hours at the library, but only one hour on the actual problem set, and five hours staring out the window. It's better to spend an hour and a half on focused work and have 4.5 hours of free time then waste that time pretending to study when you aren't actually being productive. If you can't focus, take a break. Figure out how much of your time you spend studying vs "studying." and shoot to improve that.

>You knew that this was coming.

Backlash is a great reason not to do something for a business, but a terrible reason for a forum comment.

As brian-armstrong pointed out, large stakes take a significant amount time to sell, so my guess is unlikely to be true.

>It contains falsehoods

?

Fair enough. I'm guessing. An educated guess I think, with certain predictions made which, if the prove true, would increase the probability of my being right.

Is, not was. Spotify (along with Apple, Facebook, & YouTube) removed Alex Jones content a couple days ago. My speculative guess is that Warner, expecting backlash from Jones' rather rabid fanbase, who would see Spotify's removal of his content as a declaration of political loyalties, decided it might be best to sell their Spotify shares before the backlash manifested itself.

Thank you for at least saying why you disagree rather than simply reacting and hitting the downvote button.

I cancelled my subscription when they raised prices, though I was already on the fence with the whole Billy Nye thing and the Dear White People thing. Netflix had stopped offering a lot of content that I wanted, even as they promoted content I found morally objectionable and charged me more for it.

Part of the trouble is that the processor, main memory and such are not really discrete. The brain and nervous system is far more interconnected than that. So what's happening isn't that the something in a discrete memory changes, but the circuits themselves change.

What you are suggesting is, IIRC, far more high level than where the field has been. What the author is suggesting is that they now have the ability to gain larger samples than from a single neuron, so they're suggesting use cases for the new data. This is somewhat akin to examining what is happening at several logic gates within a microprocessor, probably quite a bit lower level than what you're suggesting.

The source from Vox is Media Matters, which is literally a Democrat party source. I watched the video therein, and it's farily clear he's talking about the Emmanuels, not Jews as a whole.

Also, even if there were a Jewish mafia, discussing Jewish organized crime is no more anti-Jewish than discussing Italian organized crime is anti-Italian.

>Jewish Mafia

There's a Jewish Mafia?

>Pizzagate

He talked about it, sure, but if you can find me where he promotes violence against Alefantis then I'll eat my hat.

I'm not really certain how to respond to this viewpoint of yours.

You seem to be under the impression that such a safe space 1) can exist and 2) would be beneficial.

I'm going to simply point out that such a space cannot exist. People will think things, and those things will eventually leak out. There are very real evolutionary-biological reasons for all of those things and mans nature is not so easy to change.

As for whether such a space would be beneficial, I hold that it would not. It may be beneficial to have something akin to it as part of child rearing, gradually alleviated as the child gains maturity, but the dark nasty side of humanity cannot be eliminated. It can only be sublimated and disciplined. Thus, to eliminate speech simply because it offends your sensibilities is to ensure that you are blindsided as the nasty things metastasize into a cascade of pent-up Id.

And then where will you be? On your knees in front of the undealt with, undisciplined Id, simply because rather than have a dialogue with it, you chose to stuff it into a box.

Well, they're calling it hate speech. He doesn't talk about any particular ethnic group (not even Jews, despite what his detractors might say).

He's against IIRC having trans children take puberty blockers, which might be an issue, but TBH an argument can be made for the well-being of the child.

No, I think this is an issue of twitter-mob pressure against Itunes after Spotify announced they would keep Infowars content. And there are, AFAIK very few people who care one way or the other. It's more a slim minority of people who hate Alex Jones' views and wish to have his content blocked much the same way trolls are trying to take out Rick and Morty.

I like the nonprofit model that was mentioned towards the end of the article. I think that has more of a future than the midsized regional stuff. However, I think that what's really killing the public press is citizen journalism and video evidence. You'll have press releases and news stories describing something, but your aunt has video of it. So of course, you'll just get the video from your aunt. At that point, who needs the press? And what do you need it for? Impartial analysis? We live in the age where Donna Brazille gets the questions beforehand from CNN. Nobody believes that anymore.

This is in part the Newsman's own fault. We are in an era of hellish clickbait, and utter partiality, and many have caught on to this. It is a second era of yellow journalism and sensationalism, except now the yellow press is free.