corethree

If someone says 2 + 2 = 5 I also rule them out "a priori". I'm just biased like that. You clearly aren't. So you should spend more time considering my side of the argument because clearly you're the less biased and more rational person here.

But I would suggest not bothering with posting another argument here for me to read. Just consider my points internally. My dogmatic stance is unlikely to change since I am the more biased and less rational party here so anything you reply with is unlikely to convince me.

I'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. Genuinely I will not even consider 2 + 2 = 5.

It is clear. First of all you brought up Elon. That guy is an anomaly. If it wasn't for him both industries he's responsible for pushing forward would have been viciously surpassed ages ago.

Additionally byd will be surpassing Tesla soon. It's projected to in less than a year.

As for phones, the entire stack is owned by Asia. Software is the only thing we have left and most of it is open source.

Pretty clear cut from your examples. But also clear cut from common sense.

I suggest you find other examples to help detract from the obvious generality. Look into Tiny niches like precision and highly advanced bespoke manufacturing where the US still holds a shakey lead. These areas may help you construct an argument that looks effective but obviously isn't.

Nah I think the negative aspects of living there aren't apparent when you're vacationing there. The working culture there and making friends is very different.

I hear the first impression that is the dominant experience most foreigners get is very superficial. When you live there it's actually very different and it doesn't quite match up to the initial illusion you get from vacationing there. But I wouldn't know, I just vacationed there and had the exact same experience as you.

>Are you saying anything more than: 'My perspective and beliefs are the truth, and therefore anyone who disagrees is deluding themselves?'

What else can I say? The points being talked about here are so obvious that it seems ludicrous to me that people don't believe it. From my perspective it's like someone was explaining to you that 2 + 2 = 4 and I'm more inclined to believe that you're just being delusional and lying to yourself.

But that's the nature of bias isn't it? Maybe I'm the delusional one. But there's no real way we'll convince one another otherwise.

>Certainly not all do, and certainly not all don't.

Most don't. It's just a general truth. Just like most men don't wear dresses, or most men are stronger than women, or most humans have 10 fingers. There ARE exceptions, but that does not eliminate the existence of a very general and very obvious truth.

And let me clarify what I mean by respect. I don't just mean lip service, or donations or creating non-profit charities because it's the current trending thing to do. I mean actual respect. Like genuine respect where you look up to them, hang out with them as peers and even genuine trust. Rich people do NOT actually respect poor people.

>I'll point out that equality is a popular, fundamental notion across cultures. "all men are created equal" Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's the foundation of democracy, where poor and rich have the same vote.

All men are NOT created equal. Think about it. This isn't even remotely true or real. It is also why not all people are equal under democracy.

Have you ever wondered why we want everything politically to be fair under democracy while economically we want everything to be unfair under capitalism? It's so ironic we associate communism with dictatorship and capitalism with democracy.

Gems isn't good also because it's mostly aesthetic. No intrinsic utility other then being rare and pretty. You won't actually "improve" society with gems. It's hard to distill this in technical terms but I hope you're able to understand without the need to get pedantic.

Gemstones therefore are more of a reflection of countries with the ability to purchase the gemstones as an import and less of a reflection of the country actually exporting the gemstones. Right? If a country exports a huge amount of gemstones it means a lot of external countries have an abundance of economic output such that they can purchase frivolous goods that ultimately don't contribute much to the economy. North Korea doesn't purchase gemstones but maybe a rich country would. And the place where diamonds are mined are mostly from some poor countries in Africa.

>Can you elaborate on what you mean by "building"? It's a nebulous term.

Manufacturing and infrastructure I believe are the two words that cover it best off the top of my head but it's unnecessary to specify this to the level of pedantic detail you're going for here. I think those two terms are clear enough.

I think we both know, in general the direction China/Asia is going and where they're completely dominating the US. It's at a general tipping point now. Where one can say they're better than the US overall in the general area of infrastructure/manufacturing. Manufacturing is pretty broad and general and that's the right word to use because broadly and generally Asia is just ahead of the US in this matter.

The problem with these things is that even though it's obvious people still like to debate pedantic details in some vain attempt to use the pedantic details to obscure the obvious truth or even shift the advantage in the favor of the US. Why else would you bring up gemstones and pharmaceuticals?

I don't think I need to elaborate as you requested. You know what I'm talking about and deep down you most likely agree. The trouble here is less about getting at the most accurate truth and more about the inability to accept the truth.

Yes but Asia dominates the "building" category overall by a massive margin.

It's just true.

Pharmaceuticals, medical and gems are off topic.

I'm sure there's other small niches the US dominates in. But overall what I said is the objective truth no matter how much you desire it to be not true.

If Asia doesn't dominate a niche yet they are aggressively on track to dominate in the near future.

I would say Hong Kong doesn't illustrate the overall story.

One airplane isn't a full story. The US and Europe still lead the way here.

I believe engines are from Rolls Royce which is European.

We don't really build anything anymore. The "expertise" has transferred to Asia. Anything we build we'll build worse, slower and more expensive.

Except for airplanes that's one of the few things we still do better.

My overall point is I highly doubt nuclear powerplants will be built here in any major way. Will it happen in Asia? Far more likely.

It's because the change happened slowly. So it feels like nothing has changed.

Another thing that's changed is engineering. The US has moved up the stack. Engineering is now mostly software development and within that it's mostly web development. Engineering and manufacturing has largely moved overseas to Asia and that's where most of the expertise lies. The only thing off the top of my head that the US still dominates in engineering is software/aerospace/defense. In general though everything else is dominated by Asia, if you want the top hardware technology the US is no longer the place to get it. In Silicon Valley there used to be a good mix of different types of engineers, now everyone is SWE, and most likely doing web stuff. But here's the thing, you most likely wouldn't have noticed this unless you thought hard about it because either you're too young or because the change happened so slowly.

The same will be for AGI if it comes into fruition. A lot of jobs will be replaced, slowly. Then when AGI replacement reaches saturation most people will be used to the status quo whether it's better or worse. It will seem like nothing has changed.

It's not just a social formality. A lot of people buy into it. It's wierd. It's a sort of lie told to ourselves. If a person lies to themselves basically it means that part of them believes in the lie, and another part of them knows the truth.

Everyone at least has one lie they tell themselves so you can sort of relate. Everyone and I mean everyone is aware of the social formality you're talking about. There's literally no need to spell it out because you're just regurgitating truths that are obvious and self evident. The only time you would need to spell it out is when you encounter a poor soul who lies to himself. That's why my post was sarcastic because it's so obviously not true. Rich people do not actually respect poor people... it's absurd. Anyway as for lying to one self... This is exactly what wolverine is doing.

There's no winning here. That person will continuously construct a scaffold of rational points to support his beliefs because not doing so results in some sort of admission he can't directly face. But even so... an aspect of him knows you're telling the actual truth.

I don't know about Nim, but Go does not feel like scripting. It feels like C-style programming. Really old school and not good for scripting at all.

First 10 seconds into the video I know one major reason working against him. He has a bit of lisp. Personally I don't mind, but I'd be lying if I said his videos would be better without it.

Fortunately we have youtube.

As an upper class person myself I can verify this is true. I respect people who take on noble professions and I disrespect other rich people for myself. But I take it a step further.

What's more honorable than a teacher? The janitor that cleans our public restrooms to enable us all including the teacher! That's right, stooping to the point where you clean other people's shit is the most honorable thing someone can do when the alternative was becoming a start up billionaire. Hats off to the janitors of the world.

That's why instead of having other billionaire friends as my peers normally would, all my friends are janitorial engineers!

What a realistic depiction of reality I just made! I'm not lying to myself or making stuff up. I respect janitors and teachers!

Not all men are brutes and not all women are ditzy.

But more men then women are brutes. That's a reasonable statement.

Are more women than men ditzy? No that's sexist.

Either way anyone can like anything but you can still make a reasonable guess based off of common sense on what demographic is most likely to vote this up.

There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem here is people like you who want to turn a reasonable estimate into a sexist issue.

If you don't have the balls to say this vile shit to someones face in real life then you shouldn't say it on HN. The anonymity HN offers isn't a permission slip to be immature.

When you highly disagree with someone, learn to objectively disagree rather then attack them. Your the shit show here.

Anecdotal data is often wrong in this regard. Especially because women are not self aware and they, like men, lie to themselves and to others.

In the circles you run in, most likely partners come together as couples because of compromise. It's the best possible stable matching pairing they can get. That's the majority of relationships. It's impossible for people get their ideal.

Fortunately we have raw data to validate my points and invalidate your anecdotal data. Every point I made comes from raw correlation. Younger women get more attention from men, richer, more powerful and more masculine men get more attention from women. Look it up. The overwhelming majority of psychological studies on human mating behavior illustrates this exact pattern that is pervasive in all cultures.

You run in circles less motivated by money and status but I can tell you. A good number of those people aren't motivated by that because they can't get that status. People focus on what they achieve, if they can't get status through wealth, a lot of men tend to attempt to achieve mastery somewhere else.

Society is driven by status and power. A lot of a women's success/power is unfortunately driven by her looks. She can choose to pursue alternative paths to success but there's no denying that looks is an avenue women have easier access to then men, and it's through looks and the ability to manipulate men that women achieve most of their power.

When you look at the world. The stereotypical tropes you see in the media, movies and stories it's obvious what the generality is. Yet you choose to view the world through the lens of your "circle" and you admittedly say that your circle could be biased. So what's with all the culture surrounding the obvious stereotype? Just made up fantasies out of thin air? Come on let's be real here.

Additionally I can't imagine a man who doesn't understand why a unemployed 25 year old woman is much more attractive then a rich doctor 38 year old woman. I'm a woman and it took me a bit to understand this concept because we think exactly oppositely to men, and I've rarely met other women who totally get it. But men... All men should get it.

Men are superficially judged by women as objects of success and capability. That's why men are so afraid to show weakness or vulnerability. It's sexual selection as women are selecting men based off of this and masculinity.

The judgement is so pervasive across cultures and time that the behavior is not learned but inborn. Biological.

The same is said for women. Success in choosing a mate is biased towards youth as youthful mates are more successful at reproduction. Additionally feminine traits are indicators of good maternal instincts which further increases the success of the offspring. So men make their choice off of this and this choice has influenced female behavior.

Thus women have evolved behaviors to emphasize traits related to showing off their physical and youthful beauty. It's also largely biological.

This isn't a blame game thing. It's just the way things are. You don't blame men for beauty culture any more than you blame women for men suppressing their emotions and often taking on the full burden and stress of raising a family unit.

You have a lot of daughters so you feel empathy for them. But if you had sons you'll realize reality is just as harsh on them from different perspectives. It's just the way it is.

But you can make an educated guess that's quite likely to be true.

By statistics and common sense. Men and women are different and behave differently.

Certainly more women would vote this up. Doesn't preclude men from doing it, but I imagine it would be far less. Just a educated guess based on demographics. Just like saying conservatives vote for trump or liberals vote for Biden. The generality is true even if the pedantic technicality is not.

The term "existing" in the mind kind of covers up a lot of details. You can actually estimate the bounds of everything that can possibly exist within someones mind.

It's similar to thinking about what are all the possible things that can exist in computer memory? It's basically the total permutations of 1s and 0s.

The same thing goes on with the human brain, only the primitives are not 1 and 0. The primitives are much more complex but they are finite. One turing-complete-esque model for the human brain is the ML neuron with weights. It may be possible to model the entire human brain as just a composition of all these primitives. If not, then maybe some additional primitives to complicate things may work as well. The key here is to realize that it's more complex than binary memory but like binary memory the amount of things that can "exist" in a human brain is finite and countable.

So it's a combinatorics permutation problem of the state of all primitives in the brain.

When you bring the concept closer to actual formalization by technically modelling what the brain is, the rest of the philosophical question requires formalization as well.

Clearly when something "real" exists in your mind it is data compression. A fewer number of primitives is symbolically representing an actual thing that exists. What are all the possible things that can actually exists?

Well that's another combinatorics problem. Take all fundamental particles and compose them in all the ways possible and that's your total.

So essentially it's using high level primitives in memory to symbolically compress data in the real universe represented as atomic particle primitives.

Once all the details are in a way formalized and actualized in your brain you can easily disprove this "argument". Right? It's simply large compositions of primitives (atoms) being represented by a smaller amount of primitives (neurons) in the exact SAME way a computer represents say a world in an open world game. The whole thing is a linguistic trick. You need to visualize this problem as a physical actualization: Data and atoms (the data is the state of neurons in a neural net but in the end that's just made up of atoms too so it's technically atoms representing atoms).

This helps you get past all the bullshit word play in the original question. Not all chunks of data in a computer/brain represents compressed data from something that actually exists. It's all a matter of interpretation too. I can have a single bit represent the entire concept of god if I wanted to.

Anyway this isn't even a refutation of the argument. It's just a detailed description showing that people aren't even sure about what they should be asking here.

Is a certain stream of data in the brain a compressed version of an actual combination of atoms that exists? Or maybe is it a compressed version of something that isn't atoms but "god" or some other bs? Well the point of my whole argument was that what the "data" represents here is irrelevant. I can interpret 1010101010101 to mean understanding of god, you can interpret it to mean your sock drawer. How can someones interpretation of something influence whether or not it's compressed data of something that actually exists? No. It's not, it's like asking a someone the color of music... completely irrelevant, like Anslems entire argument... not even asking the right question.

It's well developed and used by doctors in Russia I hear.

>PS: Also, that wasn’t an insult it’s a statement of fact. You’re trying to twist the statement as not being qualified but it’s got a qualifier.

You're a liar. I clearly am typing english and reading your responses. You're typing to me in english so you know I understand it. What you said was therefore with 100% intent malice because it's simply not true. You are not a moral person. You're just an asshole and you know it. THIS statement can be claimed to be a fact, not yours, not even in the slightest.

I mean you know what happens when you call a stupid person "stupid" to his face and then say it's a fact? It's not an insult? Just a fact? You know this. No need to spell it out. You're an ass hole.

>Nope, nobody writes every single line of code in a program as cleverly as possible attempting to do so generally means you don’t finish.

You're just making stuff up at this point. A quotation made around a situation that can never occur according to you? You're just lying now.

>And no it’s not saying in ALL situations you can’t solve ANY bugs. You only finish debugging when you solve every bug not just 1 of them. Further sometimes you’re going to write a clever bit of code that doesn’t contain a bug and thus doesn’t need to be debugged.

No you're just adjusting the meaning to fit your agenda. You're going at a bit of of a stretch here. This conversation has descended into way to deep of pedantism thanks to your attempt to twist things in your favor.

>So it’s saying writing buggy code is easier than correct code, so avoid writing clever code or some of it is going to stay buggy. That’s what the quote actually means.

No. It's simplistic to say that clever code tends to be buggier. This guy took the extra step to say that clever code is "by definition" not debuggable. Again twisting the situation to fit your agenda.

Man you're done. You need to stop with the insults and stop with these pathetic attempts at explaining your point of view.

What if I don't have a terminal illness.

"If you" doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean, this is a deliberate twisting of the meaning by you. If you write code as cleverly as possible you can still solve a bug with a lot of time, with luck and/or with intelligence.

He is saying if you write code as cleverly as possible then in ALL situations it will be impossible to debug by you, which is false. The quote is not intelligent.

You know all of this you're just sinking with the ship and trying to manipulate the situation your way while throwing insults at me on my ability to understand language. Insults are a signature move by someone who has clearly lost the discussion and you've lost definitively.

I think we're both done here. After that insult there is no further need to continue the conversation. Please leave.

Why would you not take it when it's free? Makes zero sense.

The entire country can be characterized by this quote.

What's the biggest threat to the USA?

Science is slow for sure. You need to gather samples and run tests. Often testing for causality is impossible, because you literally need to "cause" the issue in your sample group and that raises ethical issues if the thing you're "causing" is harmful.

It's not even the human parts that are flawed with science either.

Science is fundamentally flawed by nature because in science and therefore reality as you know it you cannot prove anything to be true. You can only falsify things in science. Proof is the domain of mathematics.

Yeah will the doctor provide that information for free or do they hold that information hostage by making me pay them a fee for consultation? Just tell me the results of the tests over the phone, no need to rip me off.

It's criminal behavior disguised as concern.