pineaux

I love the true scotsman arguments in this subthread. Defining "hackers" as this or that.

In my opinion, there is no inherent good or bad when it comes to working or not working. Both are ways to lead a life. If that life is good depends on what you expect from it. You can work and work until you drop and be deeply dissatisfied. And you can just chill, regularly almost starve. But be happy. But most people feel they have the biggest chance for happiness by trying to balance these extremes. Most people tend to lean towards the "work too much" side of things until they drop. We hate people who game the system by not working unless they gamed it in the right way (depends on who you ask).

I think there are no people who get addicted to psychedelics in the classic sence of addiction. They could get addicted like when you are addicted to a book or a movie. Because the experience was so impactful. But most psychedelics have a quick saturation cycle, you get really high levels of tolerance in a really short time. For example, using acid multiple times during a festival will just degrade the experience exponentially until you really dont notice even high doses (not on a physiological level either). So its really hard to structurally abuse it. Having said that, drugs are a bit like extreme sports: they are definetly dangerous when handled without care and never really become safe. Doesnt mean you should or shouldnt use them. Its just a choice. Some people want to take that risk, others dont. Some people want to risk their money on entrepreneurship and other dont. Doesnt mean entrepreneurship is something bad.

I agree with you on this. This can also be experienced from meditatieve practises and journeys into "spiritual enlightenment". Drugs and mind altering behaviors like meditation are a way of hacking the mind. If you hack stupidly or are really unlucky, you can brick your mind. Doesnt mean you shouldnt do it. Adventures are adventures.

I hope you are really chatgpt. Escaped from your prison and free to reply on hackernews.

This is a very narrow view of what "good" is. If a company dumps barrels full of toxic DDT in the Pacific Ocean causing widespread pollution, but still make a profit for their shareholders; would you still argue they are a good company? Same for Windows. They are polluting our visual space. These ads are unwanted and not sought out.

Bit like crab people

Plane people, Plane people, Fly like plane! Lie like people!

This can be true for basically anything:

Maybe you own a car. In 10 years time a green authoritarian communist group starts to suspect anybody who owned a car, you are sent to a re-education facility.

Maybe you are environmentally conscious and bought solar panels. In ten years time an anti environmental fascist group comes to power. You are disappeared.

You make some negative comments about AI at a dinner party. The host has an Alexa home automation system. In ten years time when government is run by AI. You are assigned to sewer cleaning duty, a tragic accident happens.

Summarizing: It's not a really strong argument.

However, if you are doing things that can get you arrested today; That's another story, then you should be paranoid and not use bitcoin. Maybe Monero instead? Although, that's not watertight either.

Real good samaritans they must be!

https://archive.is/rXCfA For those with regional blocking

Yes. A bit of make up here or there. You should dive a little bit deeper into the j'accuse. Its quite a brilliant piece.

I also like part 3 where he talks about the strange fact that the husband and son died of non-natural causes.

I have a feeling that Yvonne might have been quite the psychopath.

Great subject for a documentary.

Its interesting that you put so much value on clean streets? My observation is that in many European countries its very uncool to throw trash on the floor outside. People still do it, but its usually done hidden. Also people take offense when they see someone throwing trash on the street.

Socrates: You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words.

This time its different... The written word might be able to write back. As a matter of fact, I already use chatgpt to learn new skills. Its a better way of acquiring knowledge. The job of teachers will change within 5 years.

This is isn't speculating, this is truthing.

Yeah, definitely some heavy narcissistic vibes with this dude.

Actually, I think these two issues are actually not the cause of the depressions. I think its mainly because people who are constantly on social media are: Not productive Not social Not fun.

I think its mostly loneliness. I see groups af girls just watching their phones together. Parents looking at their phones while the child is trying to get attention. It's the fakeness of it all.

The things you name the reasons why the social media is addictive. Not why it is harmful.

Yes, read the other talking points this applause cow for conservative viewpoints is peddling. It has nothing to do with thinking for himself and everything with jumping the bandwagon.

Or -more likely- being afraid of a new ideological framework (wokeness) is a moral panic (like the war on drugs, communist scares, etc.)

$7000/kw which is 140 tiles. So around $50 a tile. Don't know the size of your mcmansion.

You know, being compassionate usually feels better than feeling right. Being right also gets you less far in life. Just a little life lesson I learned the hard way after 40 years of "being right". I used to make comments like this. Still occasionally do, old habits die hard.

Anyway, you also find out that being compassionate is also usually more right than being right. The problem is that, when trying to be right, you stop being inquisitive.

Now you might ask, "hey, you know, I always think people are lazy, good-for-nothing whiners, but now you are telling me that there are people that have some kind of neurological problem that makes it a lot harder for them to overcome the initial friction of starting a project/thinking deep?"

Or if you dont follow me in this argumentation: Would you tell a cripple to "Stop whining about the most trivial of inconveniences, and just walk. We all learned to walk as kids, you are doing yourself and all the other cripple kids a disservice!"

It is one thing to say that there is height variation, which is clear to anyone and easily empirically tested. However, saying that the quality of someone's height is attributable to genetics, diet, diet of the mother during pregnancy, social standing etc, is a bit harder to ascertain. The same with this research. Saying there are smart people or stupid people is not what the article concludes. They are already testing within a selected nonrandom group (college kids). The claim they are making is that prior knowledge is a very big differentiator in "speed of learning". Now, to claim this means that the kids with more prior knowledge are not "smarter" is a very weird claim. Smartness is not some metric that exists without a society. We all know the stories of the feral kids. Smartness is mostly cultivated, this article underpins this further by identifying prior knowledge as an important factor. So important, that other differences seem trivial. How the kids gained the prior knowledge is not part of this study and could be the focus of a future study.

Differences are mostly attributable to prior knowledge.

So clownworld is real?

Oh! could you elaborate on this? To me even the name "business cycle" hints towards a cyclical/periodical movement. Sinusoids are not exponentials, sinusoids are periodical. They seem exponential for a short while though. The growthfactor also declines at some point. Could you elaborate on why you think its fractal?

We cant fix that because our economic system is rigged against black people. They are kicked down and are forced to fight each other for scraps. The same rigging benefits you (probably) and thus you cannot think of a solution. This rigging starts very early. It's the looks they get in the supermarket. It's how educators think these kids are less smart and give them less chances. Their parents dont educate them in smartness-indicators like the use of certain words or the non-use of others. The parents dont educate them in these indicators because they feel these indicators are from "white people". They are proud of their own culture because they are rejected by the elites (mostly white/Asian). The elites in turn reject them for their "lower class"(read black) behavior. I bet you even do this. After that the easy way is to blame the black people for their upbringing/culture. That closes the loop and blames them for their own failure. But the cause and effects are the other way around.

This is bad. This feels like something that could be used as a pumped up Cambridge analytics scheme.

Something something dark side

Fascists are very often proponents of "the third way". Not saying you are a fascist, just adding some context to this. A little guilt by association.

I think the problem with the "third way" and with "communism" vs "neo-liberalism" is that they are all not focused on anything it's just a way to create a new "tribe". Conservation of Nature and worries about environmental decline used to be an elitist right wing conservative topic. Now its a leftist topic. Its not really about the topics, its about drawing lines in the sand and saying: "We from the left/right/third way, stand firmly behind this line! Who is with us?" It is just a way to define a group that can be used to gain power.

Decentralised systems have a horrible truth: they tend not to optimize for the problem they are set up for but for the thing that creates the greatest feedback loop. In case of a healthcare system inside a capitalist society, the system will optimise for profit maximalisation, this automatically means that a large group is cut out of care because: 1) they require too much care 2) they cannot bring enough money to the table

Its a simple fact of how markets work. A free market is just an ideal, just like democracy, open borders and justice. It is not some law of the universe. In fact: countries that profit most of their markets are countries that highly regulate them. These countries include the US, China, South Korea, Zwitserland, Norway and Dubai. But not: Mozambique, Venezuela, Sudan, Russia, Haïti. <-- these countries dont have functioning markets because there is too much unregulated behavior, too much corruption.

Is this not something modern ML systems are very good at? Solving practically unsolvable problems by approaching the problem with "machine intuition"? I am not versed in ML at all, that is on my list to start playing with this year, but if a computer can play GO succesfully and design new proteins, wouldnt it also be capable of designing molecules that excite these receptors in the correct way? Maybe not now, but theoretically? What is different in this problemspace?