Whoa. Link for the lazy:
379 karma · joined September 8, 2012
http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/...
I grew up in Saudi, and got my undergraduate degree in intelligence studies. From my perspective, Baer was quite in touch with modern politics. A bit bombastic, but always a seemingly strong understanding of the political landscape.
For more of the nuts and bolts of modern operations, I suggest 'Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy' by Mark Lowenthal.
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Secrets-Policy-Mark-Lowen...
I also appreciate the foundations and history, but this is a great introduction to the tasking, training, mindset, and goals of modern intelligence operations. He's updated for post-9/11 and post DHS splintering of the IC as well.
original source doc: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/29/1406023111
"Actually, Brooke, that's been discredited as any kind of real threat, the people that use that site are the people that no one would mind seeing bombed anyway."
I agree that goals 'beyond our biology' are, quite basically, rooted IN THAT biology. We can never trust our perception to be anything other than a reflection of that biology, so I see your point.
>Would they have trade or commerce or families or anything we would recognize? using different language, maybe. They WOULD have resource transmission and interactions, methods of managing scarcity, and methods of categorizing and identifying individual nodes in their system.
Still, your point doesn't take away from those non-SOMEONE's that do not bear children, and the net impact they have left on humanity and the Universe. I can't believe that Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, and so many other contributors to the works of humanity that had no children were "lives wasted" for their lack of reproduction.
This is very well put. The 'process of out-growing our original substrate' is an interesting way to phrase advanced human growth, and one that resonates with me. I don't think we're alone in doing so (as far as life is concerned), and think we are more like our bacterial forebearers than our collective egos would care to admit, but I couldn't agree more that this is what we are doing.
You're discounting the value of information that people can leave, separate to their DNA chain. A great many scientists, artists, philosophers, etc. bore no children. They still expressed a change in the behaviors, ideas, and lives of a great many people after them.
Actually, one might argue they are, by and large, more effective at continuity of their own goals. How many children have you seen carry on the worldviews and goals of their parents? Even throughout history?
Yes, we need SOMEONE to reproduce or there won't be anyone to read the damned work. But, the work is still there, unto itself, after it's author has passed away.
tl;dr: The production of children is not the only way affect the Universe after your death as a human.
To me, building a robot to get yourself a Burning Man ticket is the definition of radical self-reliance.
I get the non-commoditification, gifting economy as a goal, but the demand for tickets outstripped the supply long ago. If you want to go, you have cleverness alone to get to the front of the pack. I'd feel building a robot to get the jump would be worlds better than allowing a scalper to profit from the purchase.
>I do know that world citizens seem to be very happy living in a world of celebrity photos and memes and " listicles" these days.
Like they were happy using nokia 3600 phones before there were touch screens.
Listen, I'm not saying it's a guaranteed money maker or something; I'm saying it's a category of industry that could use improvement and attention from startups. It is poised for profound change.
>The only thing that has really changed news is that now everyone has a camera on their phone and can post footage of events on Twitter, Instagram, etc.
That's very true. I've found it quite interesting that ordinary citizens have been breaking stories before professional journalists could even make it to scene for a number of years now. Makes me think the industry could use a change.
I hope we could see more change than you predict, but wouldn't be surprised if you were right. I'll leave it at that.
EDIT: Cut an unfinished thought.
I meant companies that are trying to change how news is consumed and produced, not those that prettify how it is presented for final consumption.
PG outlined the problem pretty clearly in 2008[0]. Perhaps you believe the news industry is healthy and functioning in delivering accurate current events to world citizens as it is. I do not believe that that is the case.
I was thinking of companies like Grasswire or non-profits like Ushahidi and Standby Task Force for this category. I'm sure there are others changing this space significantly.
[0]-http://old.ycombinator.com/ideas.html (item 3)
To have the first $100k of server time's code written on their platform is not meaningless. Perhaps I'm a sub-par wizard, but host migrations are a very real pain point in my experience. With $100K's worth of time spent developing on Google's platform, that pain would be pretty well developed by the time a startup would get around to worrying about it.
Why does anyone start a facebook group? what about BM makes it non-facebook-group friendly? There are a lot of loosely connect people that meet through BM or regionals, facebook is actually a pretty well-suited platform for discussion.
Your perspective of poverty may be a bit skewed. You think junkies can AFFORD a heroin habit?
As with many policing policies, crossing as many things off the cover-your-ass list at time of arrest seems to be very important.
Should there be a need to push 'resisting arrest' at a future date, it's probably better for someone to have said it than not. Even if this is not trained, it falls in line intuitively with policing attitudes towards risk of legal complications. It would be rewarded behavior that gets learned.
It's a terribly morbid version of soccer players taking falls. It's in their interest, as the rules of the game they are playing is written, to do so.
This post wasn't in consideration of suicide myself, just interested in the dissonant thoughts on it here. There is probably a visibility bias in who would feel compelled to answer this question in the first place. There was a suicide recently at a Burning Man event in Utah that had spurred a lot of thought as well. The reactions were so widely varied and intensely personal, I found it intriguing.
I used to react with scorn towards suicide, as though the person had taken something from anyone that cared for them. I've relented from this attitude though. A few examples of the act (Hunter S Thompson and Socrates, in particular) made me consider it in a different light.
I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made.
Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change.
The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn.
an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset).
I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible).
I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did.
At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help.
That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy.
My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it.
As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.
I drift in and out of having it be truly meaningful to me, but I would certainly miss it if I could not have it.
Explained simply, music is like color or taste but for the social and some technical portions of the brain. It is both technically thought provoking and emotionally compelling. That is interesting to me, if not important.