1,789 karma · joined May 9, 2012
Music website: https://gnossiennes.mousereeve.com/ (slightly better on Desktop).
Talk: https://youtu.be/ANYMii3Sypg
Abstract: https://www.thestrangeloop.com/2019/minimalist-piano-forever...
What would a dynamic scripting language look like that wasn't subject to this limitation? Any examples? I don't know of contenders in this design space--- I am not up on it.
I had them recommended to me. I have used them and was pleased.
I disagree that intent has anything to do with virtue signaling. People frequently are driven by their subconscious, especially in matters of tribal belonging.
There is a delicious irony in questioning the motivations of someone who is questioning your motivations.
That you felt the need to publicly separate yourself from the "sociopaths" so we'd all certainly know what a virtuous person you are is the crux of it. It's not that you stated a belief. It's that, in the same breath, you pooped on everyone not holding that belief. The disdain added nothing aside from in-group signaling.
Consider: "I believe the earth is round" vs "I believe the earth is round and the flat earthers are mouth breathers". The second drips with disdain. It has nothing to do with the speaker's earth-roundness belief. It only serves to establish in-vs-out group.
I just want the lights to apply to everyone in travel lanes equally. I don't care if you are in a clown car, a bus, on rollerblades, dragging a surfboard, etc. Just obey the frigging light.
The only vehicles that get to blow red lights are emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. Everyone else should be waiting their turns, including pedestrians and bicycles. And, maybe, rights on red (but not in NYC you'll note).
The red-light-running bicyclist blows past the stopped traffic that just had to safely navigate getting around the bicyclist occupying a vehicular travel lane, only to be forced to do it all over again.
I would put more into savings/investments and charitable giving if the taxes came down.
There's a classical one: Sunk cost fallacy
> Humans are a K-selected species - the optimal strategy for passing on our genes is to invest as many resources as possible into the smallest viable number of offspring.
It's certainly fashionable these days in the West. I don't know that I would call it optimal. Optimal now for passing along genes is probably donating at a sperm bank after getting into a regionally swanky university. A joke, of course, but notice it stacks! Certainly the donating to the sperm bank plus what you profess dominates what you profess in isolation. Since I just improved the strategy, it wasn't optimal.
> People reproduced much more when food, medicine, and housing were much more scarce.
Yet the population was smaller. You're talking per capita rates and I am not.
We successfully produce more viable adults now in absolute terms than ever before, the number of live births notwithstanding. Otherwise, global population would drop. Which it hasn't. Definitely slower growth but not shrinking: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growth rate
That site says "The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2060 and 10.2 billion in 2100."
> Humans are quite a bit different from micro-organisms
Humans increasingly inhabit inhabitable parts of the Earth with increasing density. This species-wide growth, regardless of the optimal reproductive strategy for any single individual, is like a microorganism spreading across a petri dish. We're starting to run into the edges of the dish so we're slowing down a tad. But, likely growth for at least the next 75 projected years per the above 10.2B people in 2100 projection.
Going back a step: My point is there's no end in sight for needs around housing, food, and medicine. Human beings aren't special. We consume all available resources, in part due to population growth. I did not expect population growth to be such a controversial topic. Population, it grows.
Demographic transition in one culture does not imply universal demographic transition across the species. Because those who haven't yet transitioned will control population growth rates.
Now why did I say this? Because you opened by presuming that socialism would solve human wants. Which is nonsense. Nothing solves human wants.
Suppose only 5% of the population breeds like rabbits in the presence of food, medicine, and housing. It won't take long for that cultural subpopulation to dominate.
Humans are not unlike microorganisms in a petri dish when one adds nutrients. All life is.
This scarcity of resources is true and it has nothing to do with capital allocation methodology. It's just economics. Human beings collectively have unlimited wants. You can't solve it by changing the allocation method.
> For Solomon says that `idleness teaches a man to do many evils.'
The article reads like there's a more rigorous proof of some classical renormalization results. I wish it had connected the renormalization results to empirical utility for applications.
For private use, rescind the license for non-payment.
For extra fun, surcharge the dope ordering DoorDash when his e-bike driver breaks the law. Tips will dry up. Problem solved.
This is easy.
Speeding mildly is usually a consequence of stupidly low speed limits. Unless the speeding is bucketed, this alone is enough to skew the results to say motorists are worse than bicyclists. Remember, speeding tickets are a revenue source and the incentive is to set limits that produce revenue.
> The main one cyclists break is riding on the sidewalk - which is because of cars, and it doesn't happen when there is a bike lane
This is still illegal. Blaming it on cars is lame-- these are grown adults willfully ignoring the law because they find it inconvenient.
A motorcycle likewise can ride on the sidewalk to avoid car congestion but it doesn't because it's illegal and we would hold the driver accountable. Bikes, not so much.
Having been a juror on a civil trial against the MTA, I assure you that the New York public is perfectly willing to hold people accountable for injury.
Drunk driving was reduced over my lifetime [1] by calling attention to it (e.g. MADD), shaming the practice, lowering BAC thresholds, and increasing enforcement.
Similar approaches could be done for pedestrian injury by vehicles. Sure, it takes more time (and does not scam $9 from my pocket in the meantime) but public behavior can be changed.
[1] https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-driv...