Is this a western or US based law?
14 karma · joined August 10, 2019
Anyways sheriffs do shady things all the time, like money seizures and home foreclosures and tenet eviction. All of which are typically tied to shady business practices, unethical eviction, robber baron rent hikes.
Not sure about most of the US (well I kind of am) but in New York that is how it is. Everything is corrupt when elections and money and power is involved and sometimes the wrong people have injustice strikes against them.
Unfortunately public elections don’t mean much as to convince a populous of people to elect the right way is an impossible task by two fold.
A) any candidate you elect will have to succumb to tradition and president set by the office previously, especially when finances are considered.
B) even if the running platform is maintained getting a candidate who can do such and getting the populous to back the candidate will be an arduous task.
Further research shows it was while doing the activities.
Would’ve been impressive if they got away with it...
I think this is the best answer that there can be.
Just curious to practical approaches rather than pragmatism and dogma!!
I wonder if the algorithm would become better if not only did author did the swim closer but also took pictures of different path distances and angles simultaneously and map images together. Maybe it will reveal some of the editing work on hazy objects took a little more liberty and will produce more accurate images.
Great read!
Don’t understand the downvoted when I asked for more information and said my maths are probably wrong.
I know my maths is not very accurate and maybe you can help correct my understanding. It just seems adding up each point that creates even more expanding points would never be a linear function.
Async .net may have some pitfalls but it is overall versatile which was the original sentiment anyways...
Come on, how dumb do you have to be to leave a paper trail in emails of your blatant attempt to defraud investors.
I mean it’s a pretty impressive scheme that in light of all the Ponzi schemes and MLM these guys were able to convince others to invest, especially in a technology that is totally anonymous with no real way to see what is actually going on behind the scenes.
I read it thinking the created a real crypto and dumped all the currency into one account and transferred it out. I am surprised the scheme was way less sophisticated in terms of implementation.
Do you think the company would have let you continue to work while completing the course? Especially if it was like a foreign language or something?
After 15 years really? That is annoying...
HK is another example of how technology has helped shed light which led to protests.
Kranzberg six laws of technology should ease your mind.
You don’t need MRI’s to manipulate people. Knowing basic psychology and allowing yourself some time to learn about them will allow the same effect. I understand you are saying mass produced, with data science applying these learning models to groups of people is easy enough.
You know why political campaigning on social media is effective? It’s because they take a best fit approach. You find clustered of people, and identify the one most easily manipulated. It won’t be long till they start to push the agenda fed through IV to their peers. Maybe 2/10 are dissenters and won’t listen. Maybe another 2/10 are as stubborn as the opposite agenda and won’t listen. So you are left with 6/10 people who are more likely to be convinced from someone they know rather than political advertisements. Especially if the IV being fed to best fit manipulator has disarm tactics for the opposites agenda, regardless of how true the disarm tactic is.
There was a time where you had to go to town hall, listen to the radio, and read the news paper. Even then, you were probably likely to find the same tactics maybe less pruned to actual manipulation and closer to the parties real ideologies.
Every technology has a cost benefit analysis. Do not let this stop progress. Stopping technological progress is the worst thing we can do because humans are evolving and growing and the technology is needed to keep up with the numbers.
Some of the argument may have fallen apart in the middle I’m more than willing to discuss further to clear up any anomalies...
I did however agree that there are many benefits from the pursuit, I guess I was trying to attest to the limitations of a finite resource driven society.
Fault tolerance level is reached all the time. Devices and network solutions fail pretty regularly, all sorts of crazy bugs, both programmatic and hardware based. Not saying the underlying physics IS wrong, but I am sure there is a degree of accuracy which diverges and causes the edge cases. For example my network coverage goes out for no reason. The way the radio waves propagate to the cell tower is inefficient, maybe there’s some hidden science that can do it better. BELIEVE ME I would say impossibility level is like %99.999999 but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
A great example to elude to the society you are trying to get out would be to look at the scientific community. While the outputs of all science has indeed made quality of life exponentially better and there is less widespread suffering due to natural events i.e. hunger, disease, etc... there is a certain golden standard most educated individuals hold to their ideas that work in confined black boxes.
Take for example electronics. It is a mutual notion that if certain physical formulas were discovered to be inaccurate, the devices that implement the formulas would fail. As if writing down on a piece of paper a new workable formalization will somehow send a pulse to my device that makes it stop working. Maybe it is the discovery of some fault that has an indiscernible fault. It would make sense then, that the probability to experience the fault would be nil for a long time and after n time cases would start to become more widespread. Let’s say after 50 failures the failure probability increases rapidly on a global scale. One can imagine the discovery of the fault would be close in time to the discovery of the formula which describes the fault. There would have been no clear clue or idealization of the fault unless an experimental condition had occurred. Perhaps this idea is what professors in physics talk about when they say if physics is wrong our devices would stop working.
Okay so I digress, all in all it seems the mindset to hold ones opinions of scientific matters as law is extreme. Often, people are too scared of being proven wrong? A conducive society would be one that doesn’t even attempt to make more physics off the ‘observation’ of black holes because the scientists would know how intense of a calculation it is and would considered a probability that they are way off the mark. Look at a puddle in the concrete during a rainy night. Do you see the street lights and cars reflect in the puddle? You have zero clue what the objects are, especially if you have never experienced or saw one of those objects. Let’s say in another case you have seen a car and a street light, in the puddle aren’t they just two blobs you cannot distinguish from one another, besides maybe their color? These blobs tell you absolutely nothing about Jill who is running late picking up her kid from soccer practice and runs the red light or the other blob, and crashes into another blob(this third blob probably couldn’t be seen at this point due to incoming from a different axis) which then causes jills kid to grow up without a mother and have sever traumatic psychology to overcome. Sure I can calculate some speeds at which the light blobs are moving but I have no clue that light has a whole different experience in Jills life. Light allows plants to grow which then gives Jill the substance to be alive. The blobs of light do not tell me how heavy the car is maybe only some idea because I have seen a car and can maybe make a comparison due to the size of the blob. There are millions of things going on that the extrapolated blob would never be able to tell me, especially again, the car that hit Jill that was not even picked up. All of a sudden jills blob doesn’t exist anymore, and if we only monitored the puddle there would be no shot in accurately identifying what the fuck happened to Jill.
So why do I compare this to black holes and say scientist shouldn’t spend all this time developing black hole theory? I only say it from the limited resource earth we live on. Unfortunately people play a game of economics of time, and we don’t just have unlimited resources to throw at every idea. If we did I would say there are benefits in developing the technology to view black holes. As if to say the technology is A) developed specifically view black holes and B) have zero other application. It is in fact clear a and b are false, but for arguments sake they are kind of irrelevant as the technologies developed could have been found elsewhere, and maybe on a quicker path or, the path could’ve ended shortly after and transformed into a different line of research. The mass amount of assumptions needed to be made to view black holes is ridiculous. Look at the trillions of celestial bodies that stand in the way of the light to come to earth for scientists to say the hole in light coming from this area of the universe is clear as day to be from a black hole, alibit more complicated since some other technologies like gravitational waves are used as well. What about a space age civilization that can terraform space itself? Why is a black hole more likely? Also our measurements of black holes and light not escaping the epoch fail to mention ideas like what does Greg black hole eat to be alive, and how is what Greg is fed made, what about the mindset Greg has before he crashes into black hole bob?
Too many assumptions are made by all parties involved and until one day humans can figure out a platform to do skeptical work without paralyzing development, these assumptions will be widespread and the society you describe will be impossible to envision.
Like I said a million times, there’s a lot of complexity to the argument I just described where some assumptions about process are ignored. The equivocation to black holes could have been supplanted by another widespread area of research which could have made my argument stronger, alas whenever I ponder doing science in a box black holes are their infinitude of complexity comes to mind.
Maybe we can use block chain to encrypt these real moments so it can be identifiable as real or not. Then again, some super secrete society can try and change ledgers or propose ledgers for deep fakes that get through the cracks.
I merely pointed out how Saying one sentence does not change the sentiment and tone of the rest of the story.
Ie; ‘In my personal experience’ does not negate preaching nor gospel talk.
Sure I may have told commenter two to stop contributing, but that is because commenter two was also violating the rules that you so eagerly linked.
Agreeing with a commenter who calls someone out on their attempts to sway others through logical fallacies like straw man etc, is not breaking the rules. There is a huge problem in modern times of manipulation and when people are trying to manipulate others it should be brought to light.
There was nothing wrong in the example I provided and that was not meant to be taken literal, so the example provided does not break the rules.
Again, what is the point of dogmatically following rules, when rules aren’t a catch all to begin with? They are guidelines to help form a better community. The rules need to be analyzed in the context of the whole, not in some isolated measures. Nor garnered through a ‘reputation’ via downvoted. I bet most people who can downvote felt attacked when a personal experience was labeled as gospel because they are the same people who often find themselves preaching.
HN would be better off without downvoted in total rather then some gatekeeping effort to put downvotes ‘in the right hands’. Honestly this is silly that my comment was even flagged.
If an apology is wanted for telling commenter two to stop contributing I will do so, but commenter two should also apologize for making others feel they cannot contribute. Arguments are fine but when you take the stance of I am right and you are wrong without any evidence or support or argument at all, you are not starting a debate you are just contributing to the wide pool of logical fallacy.
Lastly I will defer to Paul Gharam’s Hierarchy of disagreement, which btw op and commenter two failed to reach the top:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Gr...
When I first started, I was really shit at finding bugs, didn’t understand the total scope of parsing (used in almost every oop method / solution), and general searching how to solve a problem.
I started watching some coders, specifically geohotz, on how they search problem parameters to find solutions, and how they implement solutions. There seemed to be a gap in my investigative research that was filled by watching others investigate and solve sophisticated problems. Ie; implementing ai api in python, really showed me how to take the general knowledge you can learn from documentation ie git or more official places like Microsoft docs and apply it to specific problems that may not have been directly related.
I think, if there is a way to explain and show a junior your thought process and problem solving process while keeping a great mix of allowing the junior to solve themselves as well, there can be great benefit. The hands on approach as described above requires a lot of time and attention, maybe time most senior devs do not have. It can be very beneficial. Maybe some paired programming sessions where the senior works on his sophisticated problems and allows the junior to watch, while also introing the junior to the scope of problem trying to be solved.
I agree that quick learning is not always beneficial, regulation is always important. Actually regulation is necessary so out right bans are not induced. However, furthermore we should not stop development due to fears. There will always be fear. You cannot understand the truth or reality until you are in it. Hopefully with the development of technologies like BCI there will not only be a better understanding of the human condition but of statistical inference. The combination of both being better can lead to safeguards against the consequences aforementioned. And if at the end of the day the technology is deemed as dangerous, even though the cat cannot be put back in the box, at least the benefits will exist. No technology exists without equal benefit and harm, the spread of both is the main point of concern. Or rather the disparity creates and the widening of gaps is of concern. There is always a cost benefit analysis for any dev.
This is super simplified and thus there are some inaccuracies but I think it gets the point across. You can do further research and read the paper if you care to learn of the real specific implications of this experiment.
It seems once you unplug either via Ethernet or hard reset the pointer to the MAC address / up would get refreshed thus the full load dumped. Which would be consistent as to why in 2.5 hours the bug would persist again.
I agree it’s funny the author never found out what caused the bug.