evilturnip

I'll also put my tinfoil hat on, since I've had a long fascination with anamolous phenomenon. I still think the jury's out on what exactly is going on, but one thing that's consistent worldwide is that balls of light are associated with UFOs, bigfoot, poltergeists, etc.

My rational mind doesn't really believe in all of this, but if it did, I think I'd take Jacques Vallee's theory seriously. Jacques Vallee is an astronomer and computer scientist (involved in early ARPANET) who's studied the phenomenon since at least the 70s. Here's a fun paper:

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_vallee...

He essentially argues that the UFO phenomenon is neither extra terrestrials nor merely misidentified aerial craft. It's something even stranger!

Also, if you find that paper interesting, here's one of this books (one of the most well-known in the anomalous phenomenon field):

https://www.amazon.com/Passport-Magonia-Folklore-Flying-Sauc...

I don't know much about AI, but I wonder what AI people think of this theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

The idea being that if we want to replicate strong AI, it needs to be embodied, because a lot of our cognition is built on metaphors that are instantiated in our physical actions and perceptions.

She did, she founded Technical Illusions with a fellow Valve employee when they were fired from Valve. It was a AR bid. They raised millions of dollars but eventually shut down.

Depends on your connection to their datacenter. They have a West Coast and an East Coast. I live near NYC so I connect to their NJ datacenter. With my fiber optic, I get about 4-6ms.

I'd use Shadow for game streaming. Cheaper, unlimited stream time for a fixed monthly fee and the service is actually faster.

https://shadow.tech/usen/

The main reason I use DuckDuckGo is when I want to search for more controversial topics that Google decides to filter how they want.

When I search on DuckDuckGo I know I'm not having that filter imposed on me.

If by 'harmful' speech you mean conspiracies, I would argue they've always been around. It's not a new problem. People have always filled the gaps in their knowledge with unjustified beliefs.

However, your answer would be to deplatform those who would post such ideas. Do you honestly think that would make it better? Did deplatforming Alex Jones help people? It just galvanized those who believed there was a conspiracy and made him all the more popular.

How about we take on the hard task of trying to actually reach those who we believe have false ideas. For example, how do people respond to flat-earthers? Constant ridicule and laughter. The reason they believe in these theories is a lot more complex and nuanced than merely that they are 'stupid'.

There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them?

Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries.

The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhindered speech.

The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like.

Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.

I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with.

The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.

Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellectual circles.

Well, then don't work with brilliant assholes and start your own company where the culture is different. This is not meant to be snide. Be a creator if you believe so strongly in your principles. Lead by example. If enough people start enterprises with your attitude things would change.

Trying to impose your principles in others breeds resentment and conflict. This is human psychology.

Central decision makers generally cannot predict the outcomes of the decisions they make because the system is so complex. It's been proven time and time again that the distributed decisions of millions of individual actors ala a non-centralized economy results in a more efficient and non-catastrophic outcome.

Wherever recent history has gone awry is when a few powerful people think they know what's best for everyone else.

OK, I think I understand what you're saying.

I still think it's telling that an entire people that come from a country where the system functions much more poorly and suffer from a relative lack of privilege can look on in bemusement at our language games.

I think external perspectives do really make us take a step back and help us see what we are really doing.

The very reason they are taboo or sensitive words are the reason we use them to express extremity. We are violating the fragility of the term as a means of expression. It's somewhat like what extreme art or film can do, but on a much smaller scale.

If people in a culture say that they are using terms as a means of expression and don't believe they are actually homophobic, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume they are? Maybe they are, but if they otherwise don't exhibit homophobic behavior, I tend to believe they are not. Words and actions are entirely different.

Also, who should judge whether the word is 'good' or 'bad'? You? A committee? Language evolves organically, and a small cadre of privileged Westerners don't get to decide how a culture uses them. Especially if that culture otherwise doesn't condone violent or homophobic behavior.

I wholeheartedly agree with you; even having grown up in the US. I've come to realize the unimaginable hardships of people in other parts of the world. Only in a hyper-privileged country like the US can people find insignificant 'wars' to fight because they have not experienced the reality that most people historically and around the world face.

I've always wondered if people here were to live in true hardship for just one month as truly deprived people did, then magically transported back to their privileged life, would they come to realize how truly petty their squabbling over language is? And perhaps even be grateful for their station.

I'd even like to indulge a bit and say there's too much focus on how the system 'fails' while being blind to the unimaginable good it has produced by the very fact that they can sit in comfort and complain. Not enough gratitude for the suffering of others (contemporary and historical) that has brought them to this point.

I should clarify, I was responding to your statement that "people are generally good". I'm not so sure of that. People are good and bad in ways I highlighted above (e.g. look at Milgram Experiments and Stanford Prison Experiment).

Disagree. There are bad people and good people. People often move between those categories depending on incentives, the particulars of the situation, societal pressure and their own inclinations.

You SHOULD have a look around, but with the understanding that you may run into bad people. DISCERNMENT is the highest value when venturing into unexplored territory, not naivete.

No just remove barriers to entry so everyone has an equal opportunity. Positive discrimination not needed.

To be perfectly honest, it depends on the game. There are very few twitch games now where 2 frames would make a difference in competitive outcome. E.g. games like overwatch, paladins, smite aren't really twitch games so that delay doesn't make a huge differences. Or rather, other elements of skill far outweigh whatever small difference that delay makes.

You might have a case if you're talking about esports teams at the top tiers, but if you're that good, then you'd likely be able to make a living from it and would have your own gaming machine.

There's a few of other similar services: Parsec/Paperspace and Shadow

Latency with a good connection is usually sub 20ms roundtrip.

I use Parsec/Paperspace to game until Shadow gets unveiled on my region soon. I play Paladins (team-based multiplayer shooter) semi-competitively and I have no issues.

I feel like the methodology has a lot of flaws that makes the error bars so large as to make the actual numbers in this study useless:

1. Small sample size

2. Inactive profiles

3. These apps actually adjust the profiles you see based on your attractiveness level. I know they at least categorize attractiveness because I've had this experience when Bumble seemingly had a bug where I would suddenly get a ton of profiles that were clearly super-attractive people, then get a bunch of profiles that were clearly the exact opposite (no profile images, dark or random pictures, and :ahem: not so conventionally attractive people).

However, the general point stands: The majority of women will like a minority of men on these apps. As such, as a man, if you want to make this work for you, the basic strategy is to get as highly attractive pictures of you as possible (professional if you can) and pictures of you doing various interesting activities (as opposed to just vanity shots). Then, keep swiping right and follow up on all matches. But don't make this your only source of meeting women, as others suggested, spend a lot of time in places where you can meet women in real life.

What is the consequence of assuming the opposite?

E.g. IQ has very little effect. You can use that assumption as cover for garbage social policy that doesn't recognize individual differences in intelligence and attempts to equalize outcomes when the distribution in ability is inherently unequal and leaves everyone less happy.

What I believe is that the interplay MAY be complex, but your argument that an unqualified assumption leads to bad outcomes works both ways.

Can't we agree that there are people on extreme ends of the mental capabilities spectrum? That is, people who are mentally challenged couldn't reasonably hold down a programming job, and people who are geniuses discover new theorems.

We know that a whole host of mental handicaps are likely genetic (they show up very early in development).

If that is the case, then why is it not reasonable to assume that there is a whole range of IQ in between that might be genetically determined that result in differences in educational and employment outcomes for different people?

My favorite:

Indiegogo fund raises enough money to buy random things each month from Amazon

yes, at least for me.