zorga

> Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault.

Yes they are.

> The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.

Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.

> the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.

Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in stone, they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them for their continued unhealthiness.

> Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?

Sugar isn't remotely comparable to those two; they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not.

Look in the mirror, running around calling people juvenile is juvenile.

I understand addiction just fine, addictions can be broken: that is a fact; you can break your body of any such dependency and that you can, means it's your responsibility to do so and thus your fault if you remain addicted. I understand addiction, you don't understand that we don't all then conclude from that that one has no culpability. Other people have different moral reasoning than you do, that they disagree with you about something does not mean it's because they don't understand it.

You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself.

Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.

I fail to see it's remotely related.

> This implies you don't understand what privilege is. It's very literal. There is no blame in having it. It's not an "us vs. them" thing.

And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.

> So?

So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.

> Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?

The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.

> That's political?

Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.

The desire is generally for high availability now and ability to scale out in the future; while a single write db is generally more than enough performance wise, it doesn't give you high availability which is the main desire.

There's nothing you can do to eliminate the high speed trading case short of outlawing automated trading. As long as computers can trade, they'll compete on speed and nothing you do can prevent that. You could forcibly slow down trades to 1 a minute, and you'll still have bots competing on speed to be the first trade each minute and they'll still beat humans.

In theory yes (Einstein) though we know this theory is wrong at the small scale so in reality probably not given what we know of quantum mechanics.

70% is extremely high, you can easily get rich with a 51% advantage and making enough small bets to invoke the law of large numbers.

Absolutely not.

> It doesn't matter how you got that information.

Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.

Roman numerals still presume you're playing on a harmonized scale in a key; not all music fits that as many rock musicians don't know what a key is and pick chords randomly by sound, not by knowing anything about music theory.

I always thought of diatonic as playing within a harmonized major/minor scale, even if you change keys. What I'm talking about is music that doesn't obey the rules at all, doesn't have a key, doesn't change keys, it's just random chords thrown together because the artist thought they sounded good. Changing to another key is still playing in a key. Many rock musicians wouldn't know a key if it bit them in the ass.

Assuming they remain diatonic, much music doesn't.

Which OS? There are many, which is why they won't.

> Life is everything.

No it isn't, a rock is not alive.

> Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive.

Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication.

> Why wouldn't Earth be alive?

Because it's not, it's a big rock, it has life on the surface, but is not itself alive.

> We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it.

More strawmen.

> If anything, the only life that exists is the entire universe and we are just tiny tiny pieces of it with a very limited view and awareness of the whole.

The universe is not alive.

What's clear is that you just don't know what you're saying, you're just pontificating woo woo.

Life self replicates, metabolizes something for energy, and grows through cellular division. None of the things you just called alive do that, so they're not alive; you don't get to change the meaning of the word life to suit your narrative.

If you can see it for even a fraction of a second, you do have a minds eye; those with aphantasia can't see anything at all for any length of time. If you can see anything at all, you can improve that with practice.

That would only work for songs that always stay in key, many don't. Normalizing to C is a better approach.

Was there something about ropes, ladders, and shovels that wasn't clear? Wall's can't stop someone determined to get over/under it; security doesn't come from a wall, it comes from boots on the ground. It's not a meme, it's a fact. Beyond that, putting up a wall presumes incorrectly that that's how illegals get into the country, it's not. One only has to get a tourist visa and then not leave to get into the country, no wall stops that; walls are for show and are a waste of money. Then entire border of the country is open, putting a wall on a small part of the southern border is simply idiotic.

> How do you know that being a business leader or politician doesn't induce psychopathy?

Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made.

> Trump is asking for less than 1/1000 of our annual budget for border security.

No, he's asking for it for a wall, not for border security; wall's are't security, they're security theater. Actual security requires people, not walls. Most illegals fly in on Visa's and just over stay, they don't sneak in through the desert. Walls are easily by ladders, ropes, and shovels, only an idiot like Trump would want to spend billions on a wall.

Not in this country.

A business has no responsibility to financially support an ex-employee. If it does so, it's a gift, not something that should be expected.

> Incentive to live is different from incentive to work.

Incentive to live is the primary but not only incentive to work. Wealth is what you need when you're trying to survive, only after that's achieved do other incentives matters.

> The meaning of wealth is going to have to change.

No, wealth is wealth, it's just stuff, that's not going to change. You need stuff to survive, food, shelter, etc, that's not ever going to change.

What's going to change is how wealth is distributed, that's where the conversation is.

> There's so much more to it than 'people producing wealth'. That's pretty much going away - almost all manufacturing is already automated, and the rest will soon be so.

That's not going away, automation doesn't mean people aren't producing wealth, it just means said wealth is produced by fewer people but those robots belong to someone and its output is rightfully theirs. Just because a robot produced something doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it.

> This puts us all between a rock and a hard place - most of us will be out of a job, and at the same time the factories are in the hands of the folks who built them. So lots of goods available, and no market (few people have any money).

This is true.

> Clearly this is a different world than the 1800's free market system anticipated. So we'll have to change.

This is true as well, but that change isn't going to be moving away from capitalism and seizing the labor of the productive to give to the non productive for nothing. The productive will not stand for that and will simply stop producing for others which means no robots and no automation and everyone fending for themselves again. Automation drives down the cost of goods, less work will be require from people to obtain those goods, but those who produce must necessarily have incentive to do so or they won't, and that incentive is wealth and always will be.

> Not entitled to life? We owe someone else and the only form of payment for most is to produce wealth for others? There's no other way to organize an over-abundance of basic, life-sustaining resources for the common good?

You have a right to life, you are not entitled to be taken care of, these are entirely different things. He's not saying you owe anyone anything. Basic life sustaining resources require labor to be made useful, shelter doesn't just appear out of nowhere, someone has to labor to make it: you do not have a right to someone else's labor, you must do your own labor to take care of yourself, it is not owed to you. Being required to labor for yourself does not imply you owe anyone anything.

> The idea of wealth you're referencing is also rooted in the current system.

It really isn't, wealth just means stuff. All systems will have it, it has nothing remotely to do with just the current system. Stuff doesn't just exist, someone has to create it, that someone by natural right owns what they create; no one is entitled to another mans efforts.

It's not "my" programming, it's the reality of the world. You've haven't offered any alternative because there isn't one. I'm really trying to understand you here, but you're not offering anything, you're just saying my thinking is limited somehow without a valid reasons being presented. How about this, rather than critiquing my thinking, how about you present yours. You seem to think there's a magic step where raw resources become things you are entitled to without someone else having to labor to produce them.

Working == income. You need to stop being so pedantic that you actually think you're saying anything different than me, you're not.

> The universe is rarely best described by boolean logic.

All models are wrong, some are useful, boolean logic built the modern world. It's a damn useful model most of the time.

> There are other options that are currently not feasible

Which means they are not actually options.

> For example robots could provide everybody's needs

Someone still owns those robots so you're still living off someone else's property/labor.

There are no options where you can avoid paying your own way AND avoid living off someone else's labor. Nothing is free, it came from somewhere and someone who made it happen.

> Or we could genetically engineer people so that everybody finds their particular job meaningful and fulfilling.

People would object to that for a multitude of other reasons, however, as long as your providing for yourself, I don't really care in terms of this argument.

> You're still speaking in terms of our current system being the product of some immutable natural law of the universe.

Because it is. Your entire response is so strikingly naive one has to wonder how old you are.

> The very idea of someone "paying for you" is built on the premise that some group of people is entitled to own and control such vast quantities of the planet's resources that they enjoy access to many orders of magnitude beyond what they need to subsist

No it isn't.

> The entire premise is asinine when you really think about it.

You haven't thought about, clearly, your entire argument fails to understand basic reality.

> And, it's even more so when you add the fact that the "accepted solution" to avoiding the dilemma

The "delima" is called survival, and it's not remotely something you're entitled to.

> If you're still not seeing it, then consider the simple phrase that is applied literally: "earn a living". I mean, really think about what that means.

I know exactly what it means, you apparently don't, you seem to think you're "entitled" to food, water, and shelter on someone else's back. You are not.

> Start with the fact that to earn something implies that one is not otherwise entitled to it

Because you're NOT. To be entitled to something means someone owes it to you, please do tell me who "owes" you food, want, and shelter?

> thus owes something in order to receive it. To whom do they owe this and why?

Not owes... since you're not entitled, then you must offer something in order to receive it, that's called trade. If you're not willing to trade for the things you need, then you will die. No one owes you the things you need.

Your entitlement is that of a child who still doesn't understand how basic reality works.

And where do you find clients with one off needs like that?