lldbg

It does not look like there will be any underpinning of all values and morals that a majority of us will accept or understand. So that leaves us the question: how should we disagree? I think the current way is fine, perhaps we could all strive to be less enflamed by views contrary to our own held beliefs, but do not think that the situation couldn't be way, way worse.

[a]: https://github.com/geohot/tinygrad

As for cultural loading in intelligence tests, maybe you could expand on that? How do you measure how much culture was involved in the methodology, and how it affected the results of the tests?

80%+ is what the current corpus of scientific knowledge says. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ Here's a somewhat good primer on the topic, but the wikipedia page on heritability of intelligence (and it's sources) is also somewhat good.

25% of the variance in sexuality is genetic or heritable. Compared to approx. 80% for intelligence. A small genetic component, but it seems as if experiences are the major deciding factor for sexuality.

* people who view democracy as a set of values, and if you do not share those values then you are against democracy.

* people who view democracy as the democratic principles (voting, representation, freedom of assembly, and so on)...

In my world (I belong to the second group) democracy is freedom of speech, the exchange of ideas, and coming face to face with values and opinions that you do not agree with (in fact you may find them abhorrent), and thinking that that's the whole point.

I found it an enlightening take on the situation, and thought that I'd share it here.

This year I have barely spoken more than 30 minutes to someone in real life, per day. If my interactions over the internet were to be as they say curated, I would effectively be silenced.

I was a frequent reader of r/dt a few years back, as the top poster was. There was nothing in particular there, no trend, that was any more terrible than what I could find in my bookshelf. Deal with it.

Interesting

[a]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

No, the solution is leaving the oil in the ground, anything less than that and what you're making is excuses and not progress. We can't keep moving the goalposts.

There is nothing good for the climate about 13 norwegians (to reference another comment on this article) buying luxurious cars that happen to be electric.

I doubt renewable micro-grids are going to power EVs in the third world anytime soon, but that would be nice I guess.

This made me reflect on whether good language design should limit expressiveness of code?

To me it is obvious that the solution to the global climate change crisis isn't rich countries buying new luxorious cars, that happen to be electric. That's a very western-centric view.

Edit: I would like to rephrase the last sentence as "At least it is better than _an_ alternative, which is to sell oil and buy fossile fuel cars." which is a fairer categorisation of the problem space and less consumerist.

Foucault seemed to think it was, if not proper behaviour, then at least not-unproper. That is a moral judgement.

To suggest that Foucault was above the entire concept of morals as I understand you to do, well I can't agree on that and I don't think he would either. Of course he was trying to be a moral authority, remember that this whole thing was about him (and others) attempting to legalize sexual relations with children. If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? And barring that, it is clear that he was and maybe is an authority, because here we are half a century later or so still discussing his position.

His experiences does not excuse him in my eyes. Neither does it impact to the slightest degree the truth-value of his position on this issue, nor of his philosophy overall.