hyperdunc

Why are you willing to question MollyR's motive, but not the motives of the story writers?

A little "positive stress" can increase performance in the short term.

The classic example of escaping a hungry lion translates into modern-day scenarios like meeting an important deadline.

It's when stress is sustained that major health problems arise.

I have an S2, S3 and S7.

The S2 and S3 have both been banged, dropped, thrown, splashed and sat on and they're still going strong.

The S7 slid off a low couch and fell about 30cm onto a wooden floor. It had a protective case on it, but the screen is wrecked.

Unless Samsung start manufacturing their S-range phones out of synthetic diamond I won't be buying another.

Assuming your mechanism is accurate enough, why does it mean trouble?

Psychedelics can accelerate the process by stripping away ego and forcing one to consciously process realities about one's nature and situation.

I've no doubt certain individuals have been given a hard time, as in the accounts you've read.

But I don't believe for a second that women "are systematically encouraged to get out, and do something else with their lives."

If a woman doesn't feel compelled to pursue STEM to escape poverty - if she can make a career choice based on non-economic factors - then it's reasonable to assume her more innate traits and desires will come into play. (One such trait that asserts is a preference for dealing with people over abstract systems.) These traits are at their root biological and only modulated by culture.

If a woman is going to be put off participating in tech because she feels unwelcome then she probably isn't that interested in tech to begin with.

If people do what they love they will be driven to overcome barriers, perceived and real.

> Whatever is keeping women to 20% of our field is artificial, and a travesty.

In what sense is it artificial? And why is it a travesty? Is it also a travesty that much less than 20% of all nurses are male?

Gender parity seems to have become dogma. I'm not saying increasing parity has no value, just that its value is not so evident.

The message you replied to may be facetious, but it makes a fair point. There is too much emphasis on alleviating the suffering of people who probably shouldn't exist in the first place.

In the 90s in Ethiopia there was a famine caused by drought, lack of development and especially over-population. Affluent countries gave tonnes of food aid and reduced the size of the catastrophe.

Soon afterwards, the population of Ethiopia exploded. As a collective they had learnt nothing about the danger of over-population.

In India, there's also a lack of social awareness about the impact humans have on the environment - but the issue isn't famine. Rather, the huge population is bolstered by developments such as modern farming techniques that produce food of dubious quality.

Generally, humans (in the third world in particular) are like most species in that their populations increase to the limit of what development and the environment supports. Sudden environmental changes and rapid, careless development bring suffering to many of the extra millions that exist.

And when suffering occurs, never does anyone of influence say that perhaps humans should stop breeding like rabbits and that perhaps a catastrophe is nature's way of telling us that.

Instead, with every catastrophe we hear pontificating about how terrible it is, and often foreign entities will rush to give aid and thereby reinforce the irresponsible collective behaviour of the societies that are suffering.

Does that sound heartless? It's not quite so heartless as how suffering individuals are treated by their own societies. When a society is mal-developed and contains hundreds of millions, the suffering of an individual is negligible to the whole. In these circumstances it is likely that only mass suffering will cause reflection and change.

Suffering societies need to learn from tragedies and take collective responsibility by reducing their population numbers and valuing the lives of their members.

Equality of outcome can only be obtained through tyranny. Or perhaps at some point in the future by surrendering to a benevolent super AI.

Neither scenario is appealing.

There are no arguments or talking points in the interview that are specific to the collectivist alt-right. Peterson is clearly an anti-authoritarian individualist.

The interviewer is either extremely confused about her own ideology or being deliberately standoffish by invoking strawman after strawman.

She seems to think certain groups of people are entitled to success they haven't earned, because there is some nefarious and ill-defined force oppressing them.

Peterson handled it well and made some great points about the roles of competence, sacrifice and disagreeableness in work success.

Are en dashes not meant to be used to show a range, especially between numbers? Not that it matters.

The Ancient Egyptians did too. I recall examples on a temple wall that illustrate decreasing virility (semen volume) as age increases.

http://www.seiglefamily.com/2008egypt/IMG_4997%20hieroglyphi...

> Facebook has the right to moderate content on their platform however they choose.

They have the legal right. But any ubiquitous service should lose that right and be subject to the First Amendment.

You don't have to like it. You also don't get to censor it because you don't like it.

If that's inherently oppressive then it's not much of a leap to say that disagreement, categorization and even existence is inherently oppressive. Which makes oppression a good thing.

If you frequently use indica to help sleep, you'll find it even harder to sleep without.

Was it explained to you why there's a 50-50 target goal, or is the value of such a goal automatically assumed to be known and shared?

Today is there a word more inane and overused as "diversity"? It probably shouldn't be used in government reports.

But no word should be banned and attempting to do so is dangerous.

Yes, the distinction is so obvious and yet it needs to be raised repeatedly.

It's more likely they'll further militarize.

Virtue signalling is profitable.

I see two major problems with sites like NYT and WaPo:

1. There is important news they choose not to cover, especially for political reasons. (The news they do cover is usually of better quality than most.)

2. Their opinion pieces are frequently poorly thought out.

There is a very similar dynamic in U.S. politics between extremists on the right and the left, both of whom need each other in order to remain relevant. The big difference is that in the U.S. true right wing extremists have been all but eliminated, so radical leftist activists need to invent all kinds of boogymen to replace them. "White supremacists" and their supporters are currently being cast in this role.

Yes, but surely it's possible to jump straight to REST or beyond.

Playing to our biological urges is what makes most economies function. Only the details have changed: last century it was tobacco, today it's social media.

Will we transcend the instincts that got us here, or will we become perpetual slaves to a finely tuned techno-capitalist system we don't understand?

Ignorance != agreement

Yes, China's hegemonic strategy of soft power through economic and infrastructure building is far superior to the US's military-based strategy.