Maybe, but does it matter? How do you beat fascists? Look at Deutschland before the NSDAP took power. Many people tried to fight the NSDAP, with violence, with writings, with rallies, demonstrations... But all of it didnt work. It only made them more resolute. There must be a better way.
This. Its the arrogance of the Dems that is making people turn to Trump. It's getting on the high horse and calling all Trump supporters trash and drooling fucktards and stuff like that. You are making yourself look bad. Imagine someone isnt so politically active, but hears an elitist dem calling people they dont know a drooling fucktard, what do you think they will think?
Yeah. Most democrat leaning people here and outside are not reading the situation correctly.
We are currently in the process of the creation of a new world order. Its happening everywhere. Right-wing, anti-immigrant, egomaniacs with little respect for democracy as we know it are taking power in all of the western influence sphere. It might be because this is the way countries like China/russia can undermine the hegemony of the west. It might be because of the way the internet works that takes away power from the systems that used to work. Or what we could conclude that the story the liberals/left are telling all over the world implicitly locks out most people that vote and is self destructive. Either way. Don't believe the pundits they are consistently wrong.
Ah I am sorry, I was not precise in my wording and thus wrong. I meant animals as in cellular organisms that are mobile and eat matter. A lot of people think plants are a prerequisite for animals which is wrong in at least one way. I studied biology so I should have worded it correctly. I should have said that heterotrophs and autotrophs with a basic form of photosynthesis -that looks nothing like the form it has nowadays- first colonized the world. Then multicellular animals without hard bits and less defined organs came into existence and shortly followed by "plants" like kelp and other loosely structured colonies of algae. Then a long time after that real plants and land plants and then animals with hard bits. I am telling this from memory and should probably check it. I was reacting in a way I usually react when someone says something stupid in a pub. But this is of course a more learned platform and I should have reacted accordingly.
With more evolved we mean: more steps between the common ancestor than the compared one, when defined. I must admit, it is not based in facts, to make an extreme point: we have a common ancestor with sponges. But sponges have not evolved a lot since they first came on the scene. We are more evolved that sponges. Similarly, early plants and sponges had a common ancestor. Early plants are probably more evolved than sponges.
I feel compelled to try it out in a serious way and contribute to it. I have strong knowledge of python and am learning C. Are there good reasons -apart from attracting the ire of c-programmers- to not use it?
Actually this is not a theory. Photosynthesis came millions of years later than life. Plants are evolved from animals, not the other way around. Basic animals are less evolved than basic plants.
Yeah. It looks pretty cool. There is something satisfying about a complex mechanical mechanism. However, in its current form it is not the future. Combustion engines in general are not going to be the future. Hydrogen is a joke. Not energy dense enough. And expensive to make (energy wise). It also needs a vast network of gas stations.
Also you are allowed to lend your book out to anybody in earth at any time you want. You have bought the book, its yours you can do with it what you want. Burn it, read it, use it as toiletpaper. You arent allowed to republish the book however and earn money on it. Or give it away for free. So the real question here is: what is the definition of publishing. Is the IA publishing?
Internet Archive is irritating. Just archive.is it and 9/10 times it's already archived. Especially with articles here on HN. And if it's not archived it will be archived on the spot.
Because you want it to be a hurdle. The hurdle nudges you to not go to the YouTube experience and stay in the YouTube tv experience. So to the creator: the way you did it now is perfect!
This is actually very untrue. It sound right but it's not. A lot of the younger crowd takes to analogue devices as bees to honey when they've had a chance to use it. Vinyl is a growth market. Tapes are being collected. Even film roll companies are experiencing year over year growth. Since their demise 10 years earlier. I think it's because all these things are not "nothing" you can destroy them, lose them, sell them, buy them, own them, give them away, hold them, they are unique and hard to copy.
Also diy and maker channel.
Just add voidlabs, mitxela, some other makers Colin furze, adam savage and some woodworking channels, like four eyes furniture. Some metalworkers like inheritance machining. Just general creative engineering stuff but not documentaries.
Yeah, I agree with you. I want all those things and would try to attain them if possible. But I also think it's selfish and "not how it works".
I think people are not really made for adapting such a long time. I also think the generations after you would want to own a part of your ecological niche to live in themselves. You might be looking over your shoulder the whole time.
Yes, but tiny variations in phenotype will foster rather largely different outcomes. People forget that a lot of your genetic traits are there as potential, but not as fact. Its not even necessarily and upbringing thing. Epigenetica systems, multi generation genetic markings (like famine). Its very hard to say how a certain genetic trait becomes an observed psychological trait.
Proud to be poor is an interesting emotion. The Bible writes that it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel through the thread of a needle. I wonder what the psychological reasoning is based on. Is it an evolutionary adaption? Like a male peacock with its anti-fit unhandy tail. A way to communicate fitness?
Nah, this is not true. This is just the narrative because someone want to get the honors or the stacks of cash. Apple wasn't created by Steve Jobs. Not even created by Steve Jobs and the Woz. They did start something that eventually became Apple. They had a lot of sway, but without all the other people that worked there and created all the important details it would have just been a pipe dream.
I smoked for 20 years. Tried stopping for 5 years.
Then did a course on the nature of nicotine addiction.
Some core facts:
Smoking works by relieving the psychological pain that is created by not smoking. Reread that.
There are no other real benefits. Smokers have a higher baseline stresslevel.
All nicotine addiction works the same as smoking, all nicotine products are created by the tobacco industry. You are still addicted to nicotine if you use patches.
The only real way is to stop using it and to endure the mild withdrawal symptoms.
Did you know that the tobacco industry spreads anecdotes of people who died of some smoking related disease and kept smoking till the very end? Why? Because it implicitly tells you two things: it's either just so good. "To die for" good. Or it must be really hard to quit.
They also spread horror stories about withdrawal. Many smokers think the withdrawal will get even worse when they are actually already at peak withdrawal. Just hang in there a little more. It's not so bad. You can do it.
Then, when you have kicked the habit. Convince yourself that even just 1 cigarette will enslaved you again, so smoking "just one" is not an option.
No this is not true. You can easily point out many middle management positions that are basically bullshit jobs. One example I know of in my personal life: People that get promoted because they need to get paid more, because they have been working somewhere for some time, and you need incentives to keep your workers happy and thus you create a bullshit job.
Agree. But I like the tendency to criticize celebrated thinkers. This article is just not doing a good job. You could say the writer of this article has done a bullshit job. In a way.