Similar to how moths guide themselves toward light
35 karma · joined August 19, 2021
The principal task of a "research science manager" is not to "do" the research, but foster an environment that will help other researcher that are actually focused into looking in / for the "dirt" (by dirt I assume you mean the nitty-gritty details of unraveling research problems). This would be setting high level direction, advising on approach to research problems, as well as the general "bureaucracy" and logistics required to make the team running. If time allows, a research science manager can still explore some research topics on his own as a research, but that becomes more of an side quest than actual main quest. Of course, they can still yield interesting result.
Finally, a research science manager should not just work in a top down fashion, but also incorporate bottom up feedback, i.e. adapt the overall research team's direction based on the "dirt" that is brought up to him by the dedicated researchers.
It is hardly a naive world view. It is instead grounded in reality and the evolutionary luggage of humans and its various consequences on our cultures. We all probably agree, but there seems to be a misunderstanding of the grand parent's comment. Namely, you stated that "Religion became a tool ...", but what GP is referring to is "before it became such tool, what was it ?"
> "I doubt it was ever "for the good of the tribal man", although it's a nice story." I think both GP and I will agree. It is not "for the good of the tribal man", at the same time it does not imply the other alternative that you seem to suggest: "for the benefit of the ruler class".
For example, the selfish gene theory offers a compelling explanation that will not only fit both perspective ("good for tribal man / tribe", "good for ruler"), but also provide insight to similar cultural aspects such as religion, patriotism, to only cite a few. Namely, genes influence their containers, i.e. "survival machines" (SV) in their environment, and natural selection favors genes that induce behaviors leading to increasing the number of copies of said genes in the population. Compared to other animals, humans evolved a complex social dimension as part of their behavior.
Among the various "humans" populations (probably even more distant ancestors), the genes that led to the heuristic behavior of "follow the elders / leaders of the tribe" happen to grant a differential survival advantage to its carriers: indeed, the elder is an "elder" in virtue of having living long, and more generally, a "leader" is such in virtue of having lived long enough and gathered large social and "financial" capital. So "follow the elders / leaders of the tribe" is a useful rule for you to survive. Over time, the gene becomes spread through the general population.
Due to the inability of our ancestors to properly establish causal relationship, while passing "useful rules for survival of the group" , they also happened to pass a lot of superstition and irrational principles, namely because they failed at establishing causal relationship ("is the crop yield bad because I looked wrong at the sun god statue ?" and so on). Those rules are "simple", easy to follow for the tribal man, and to make matters worse, his genes have likely conditioned him to follow those rules (mostly) unquestioned anyway. Whether we like it or not, the rule of "behave well now for a better life after death" was useful at the time, at a surface level for both the "tribal man" but also his "powerful people / leader", and at a deeper level for their shared genes.
Like many other "heuristics" for decision-making that humanity has carried over, it is not immune from exploitation from "more selfish", "mutant" actor: snake oils salesman, politicians promising easy solution to what are actually difficult problems. Religion might have at some point been useful for the good of the tribal man, and incidentally his tribe leaders, which only reinforced the pattern, but the evolutionary blueprints these religion rides on now get exploited by what we nowadays call "powerful people", as you say: > But powerful people(like Peter Thiel) have throughout history enforced their own fucked up world views on the rest of us, via indoctrination and blunt force. It's still ongoing. > People are wired to follow their leaders. But it is not just a matter of indoctrination and blunt force, it is unfortunately a matter of predisposition of the human mind. But the leaders have not "wired" them, they are just plugging into already existing circuits, and channeling their current to enact their desired outcomes (however perverted they may be).
To leave on a optimistic note, by a chain of serendipitous events, despite religions dominating not so long ago, secularism has somehow emerged and helped us separate the wheat from the chaff in many aspects of our lives. As humans, we already have come a long way in untangling our messy evolutionary baggage and the various side effect of natural selection of genes and their extended behaviors (religion, culture, etc...) Just as how we have to upset the genes' goals through methods such as contraception, there is no reason why we couldn't free ourselves from their other machinations.
> I believe most people have an innate spiritual side, questioning our roles in the universe and what life is really all about.
I think this statement suggest a confusion / mix-match of philosophical, moral and ethical questions that are still grounded in the material world, and "spiritual" that are by most common definitions pertaining to super natural assumption (intangible human soul never measured so far). If anything, deeper examination suggests that religion hardly helps much when it comes to those grand questions either. Most people probably have the capacity to question the "why" and other such questions, but not all necessarily them have the luxury of exercising it.
Technology, methods and people at the time are bound to have been different, even if only slightly so.
Throughout history, many things were thought of as wasteful and looked over, until some people serendipitously spent time and energy and found some diamond in the dirt.
Thanks in advance.
Looks like it is referred to as Neurocysticercosis [0].
The parasite does not necessarily chose where it might end up, so it is up to luck. The victim probably ingest a bunch of eggs, which will find their way into different parts of the body, with different level of survivability. The brain does look like a cosy place to survive.
[0] https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/neuro...
> This is either a troll, or a very dishonest take ? Rossmann literally reads his messages in the video, as well as his own answers, and explain his rationale for distancing himself from the project.
Yes, he is "scared", because Micay comes out of the blue to accuse him of supporting "murder attempts" against his person, and to "publicly expose Louis" for all the wrong he has allegedly done to him (Micay).
At the cost of using a very simplistic analogy, if the cook at the restaurant I eat daily keeps threatening retribution for unfounded reason, I will make sure to not only stop eating there, but make others know the situation in case something happens to me.
Rossmann made some of the most enthusiastic videos spreading awareness about the GrapheneOS project, and even provided funding through his work at FUTO. What does Micay have to offer to him, beside keep working on his project ?n
Building upon this, I will further quote your " I believe Rossmann grew fustrated with Micay at some point and then decided to bait him into a reaction so he could take him out of context to.. i dont know get back at him? Its not very clear to me exactly why he would do this."
How is it a bait when Rossmann privately tried to clear up the misunderstanding about GOS and Micay's situation with Micay in private, which did not pan out 8 months ago. He asked Micay to stop contacting him about his "Informative, but unfortunate comment" on Techlore's video, even offering a fresh start for Micay to give his perspective. Instead, the latter doubled down on accusations that Rossmann was supporting harassing campaign against him. Please keep in mind that this was around 8 months ago. Then Micay contacts him out of the blue in a few days ago, threatening to "ban him and expose him publicly", but this is somehow Rossmann baiting him ?
Maybe you could share with us some missing information that shows how Micay was baited ?
Tom Spark video is hardly fair, as it omits a lot of important information that better shows Rossmann's perspective, just like your comment seems to be doing. His comment section in my opinion is a handcrafted echo chamber that supports Micay, as I left a few comments that addresses the weak point in Tom's analysis, but they have yet to appear in public. Meanwhile, comments that echo his perspetive, which were also left after my comment were left through, and one was even pinned.
In any case, have a nice day.
Thank you for your time.
Unless one can come up with a way to produce a custom keyboard with the same height restriction, using something like a Thinkpad keyboard which is considerably taller would essentially require a custom taller chassis.
Not impossible, but relatively hard I would say.