bildung

Which this is all about! The author talks about 51 Munsell color samples out of 1500, so only 3% of the gamut.

Look how specific "violet" is in the Munsell system: https://munsell.com/color-blog/munsell-book-of-color-1929-tr... (violet is at #17).

This is usually a sign that it wasn't the article's author who misunderstood ;)

Physically, people obviously could see the same frequencies. But what to make of the raw perception has a cultural aspect - after all, the whole band from 400 nm to 780 nm is continuous, and we are able to perceive the complete range[0], so the color categories we use have to be arbitrary to a degree. So seeing here means consciously differentiating, not physically perceiving.

Anecdote: I was working in a print shop during university. After a few years of consciously comparing small hue differences, I became almost offended if someone in class talked about a "purple" line in a graph that was clearly magenta to me. I couldn't care less a few years before.

[0] = many parts indirectly, though, e.g. yellow is not a color we can see directly with the cones alone, it is processed first.

I don't think this is about Trump, GOP governments have failed to reduce government programs for 5 decades now, and almost always resulted in more deficits: https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*pqIXolEpzpTNktAgIclA-A.png

From the outside (I'm not from the US) it looks like the small government talking point has been empty rhetorics since inception.

And yet Silicon Valley lies in one of the states with the most employee friendly regulation in the US wrt worker protection, paid overtime etc.: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/Bes...

Which means the pixel positions are known to the server, which means the image isn't really encrypted?

How is this possible (I have no clue about FHE)? If the server can do operations on the image, then the image can't look like random noise, or not? And if there are indeed patterns the server can operate on, then the image can be decrypted?

For that, we not only have to know the what, but also the why behind a news item. We have to know the relationships between things.

So while we can't indeed can't explain everything completely, that doesn't mean we can't explain anything.

In hindsight the drought/global warming example is bad because there can indeed be another reason for the ocurrence, but even telling multiple possible reasons (e.g. by asking an expert) makes the news item more insightful than any context at all.

> This is a circular problem.

Yes, that was my point! There is no arbitrary threshold where we could stop referring to things happening in the past and get unbiased news.

Or yet another example: The current debate around minimum wage increases. The news could simply state the positions of the two parties, and the current nominal number of $7.25. But that wouldn't make this unbiased, because the $7.25 at inception had a different purchasing power than now. And a different ratio to GPD per capita. Thus omitting this context skews the news item towards the side that is against an increase. But adding the context favors the side that is for the increase.

FYI this is canon in media science, and probably something every journalist learns at university.

Look at global warming: Either it is man-made or not, either it is a problem for our future or not. There's no objective middle ground. Sure, one could simply have news that say "there is a drougth in the center of the US, stronger than other droughts in the last 50 years", without any context. But even this is not objective, because omitting the context of global warming already skews the message.

Or let's use a real historical example: The Soviet Union's invasion into Poland in 1939. Without any context, the SU is clearly the agressor. But with the context of Polands invasion into the SU in 1919 things suddenly look different. And with the additional context of Russia annecting polish territory in the 18th century it looks different again and so on and so on. There clearly is no way to communicate this objectively (i.e. in this case, pro-Russia people could ask why I'd stop here and not with some polish-lithuanian action before the 18th century).

Ideologies are a set of ethical/moral assumptions about what is right and just, i.e. they are about human practice, about what humans ought to do.

Religions are ideologies, but they are also a set of beliefs about the world itself, about the physical and metaphysical reality - which are thought as true a priori. This part is almost universally wrong, as we could learn by a competing concept: science.

Ideologies can only be falsified insofar as they base their arguments on statements about human nature - these can be questioned empirically.

Not inherently, though. This is only because the current energy production is 90% non-renewable globally. See e.g. here, page 11: https://group.vattenfall.com/de/siteassets/de/verantwortung/...

Only because we cheated, though: Houses can't sponantously grow more cells in place when more energy is needed.

It just feels great that I could just immediately start fixing things on any computer should an issue pop up next year or so, without worrying about dependencies or some build step being broken etc.

For us being able to develop and change Ego and Alter, we need to have the mental capability for doing so. Which we obviously have, physically.

Both Ego and Alter can and do change heavily through life, and thus are strongly affected by culture, socialization etc. They can't change unbridled, though: There are multiple facettes of personality that are pretty stable over time (like in the Big Five model), ignoring traumata etc. And there are limits to our mental capabilities, just like there are for reasoning and other aspects of mind.

So, within the pysical borders our bodies give us, Ego and Alter can develop quite freely, heavily mediated by culture.