throwaway19972

No, nothing like that—I'm saying that people generally deserve better than recycled IP, and Mattel came very close to people realizing this (yet again) by not choosing Robbie/Gerwig (and if you look at the story of how this movie came to be, Robbie was at least as big a factor as Gerwig was).

"Science" is not a thing in itself, or it's at the very least heavily polysemous and vague. It's a collection of institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures that can sometimes, under the right conditions produce greater collective certainty about the universe. It's not a magic wand that works great when measuring physical processes but goes flaccid when empirical measurement gets difficult. In fact, that's why it's such a valuable concept and is clearly distinct from "magic".

Just because you prefer "hard science" because it's easier to control variables doesn't give you license to push your pet definition (notably, not provided) and value-judgements about the word onto other people. (Or at least—taking this license destroys your own credibility.) Doing so does just as much reputational damage to the aforementioned institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures than people who try to draw too much certainty from poorly controlled variables.

What ever happened to nuance and understanding? C'mon! I believe you're capable of better. This kind of rancid tone has no place in serious discussion.

It's also worth noting that this was almost handed to Amy Schumer and not Margot Robbie (who actively spearheaded pitching the project alongside Greta Gerwig), which is probably the difference between making a mockery of the project and giving it the love it needs to survive despite being branded bilk.

> Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion.

No, it isn't. Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. Third, you're perfectly capable of communicated despite this, and certainly more than pointing out a disagreement over facts. Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement and don't appear willing to discuss the bulk of the commentary?

Meanwhile, "good faith" actually is a precondition for decent conversation.

EDIT: Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim. So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. Eg https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-exe...

> This is the "third option" which is missing from the intro: actual science.

What a snide mischaracterization of a word that essentially means "methodology"

Yea, that's my point: the reason is greed (and narcissism, self-delusion, etc). That's the only explanation I can think of: folks with privilege and power not only can't imagine a better world, they straight up prefer a hobbesian one where they can claim to deserve being on top.

Who cares? You're missing the forest for the trees. Alcohol is still legal and kills thousands (millions?) times more people. If we can't discuss that, being correct has no value. If the only thing you want to contribute is to point out a lie, why have the conversation in the first place? It's just wasting everyone's time.

> the design of Unix shell is bonkers

Compared to what?

Do you have an example of a texting app that doesn't use native input? This just straight up doesn't seem accurate.

"Generally accepted" is nearly impossible to discern from an individual standpoint. I prefer Wittgenstein's stance that you should essentially accept uncertainty that you refer to the same world/concepts/knowledge that others do and engage in good faith efforts to communicate the best you can. This amounts to the same thing but it's not weighted towards some (likely wildly incorrect) subjective viewpoint of the general population.

His advice is good; I've found multiple outfits based on his recommendations. Given that he specifies how to select clothes based on form, function, and taste, and not by pimping brands, this is absolute gold.

Who gives a damn how he dresses; I hope he takes his own advice because it'd be pretty weird not to, but he could walk around nude for all I care.

Expecting the market to sell EV when there's such pressure to subsidize lower fuel costs was never going to work out. Americans' inability to stomach discomfort without destabilizing the country is really, really bad news for the human race.

This response reads to me as, at best, a bad faith intepretation of hyperbole.

It seems very obvious why someone could get worked up over demonizing a relatively benign psychedelic over literal poison that is responsible for myriad health issues and daily violence.

If you can't meet in the middle and actually discuss the substance of the topic rather than nitpicking their comment, why comment at all?

I can't say I've ever tipped based on service and it's a hilarious and depressing falsehood that anyone believes this is what tipping is for. We tip to compensate for the owner-biased, dysfunctional society we have the fortune to be born into.

That said, I rarely eat out anymore, and when I do get food I order takeout. The obsession with service when I don't really give a damn about it has basically destroyed my desire to sit down in a restaurant and pay even more to have my water occasionally refilled. The constant "thank you"s and "how's the food" and pushing menu items on me is basically the opposite of how I'd prefer to spend my time eating in a restaurant. Just bring the food and a water pitcher and leave me alone, please!

Yea, but why can't we correct this with modern technology? All the old reasons have more or less disappeared with shipping and computation. All the remains is greed.

It's no mistake that the rise of cyberpunk and postmodernism coincided with the collapse of competing ideologies to market capitalism. As Capital killed its enemies, you see belief in humanity and its ideals in art go up in smoke.

Personally, I find computers to be harbingers of doom. Not essentially, of course, but it's pretty clear at this point we're not going to see the potential of the technology we already have realized within my lifetime, but we will see a good deal of the predicted use to abuse people. Hell, we already see much of it.

Ok? I'd rather trust DARPA than private enterprise.

> They could stretch back to middle-earth.

Is this an odd translation of 中国 or am I missing something?

Edit: took me way too long to realize this was referencing lord of the rings.

Absolutely it does—China's belt and road project is marketed as "the new silk road" very intentionally.

> I’m not sad they didn’t work with a hundred companies and take tens of years and still have nothing to show for it.

what a ridiculous counterfactual. We have plenty of wildly successful standards that weren't just thrown at consumers and called a standard.

(No insult intended to Maria or Michael, it's a lovely name in itself.)

If only the NSA or the people designating who terrorists are vs who our allies are had such pure, pro-human intentions.

Better than using a distinct name for a mostly-identical project or effort (looking at you, MariaDB).

I wonder how long it will take for the sort of tone this generates to become the baseline for what to avoid in high-volume email.

> In Shenzhen for example, it's not uncommon to see police wearing flashing sirens on their shoulders as part of their uniform. Motorcyclists share the same road as pedestrians, and with so many delivery app drivers you're always on the lookout to avoid being hit.

I don't think this is quite as distracting as semantic-laden graphics like ads. They quite literally pollute the mind as well as the view.

> I would want to do it with my phone because then I only have to have one thing to carry around with me.

I would prefer this to be a keyring over a phone for aforementioned reasons. Secondly, the app is buggy and often just fails to work. Third, it takes a good deal of time to take out the phone and fumble around with the software.

All in all, it's a pretty miserable experience.

Yea but we also write the same software over and over and over and over again. Perhaps slower, more methodical development might enable more software to be written fewer times. (Does not apply to commercially licensed software or services obviously, which is straight waste.)

If politicians had any desire or awareness to actually represent the needs of their constituents, the USA would look like a wildly different place. Instead we just have a single wedge issue every four years that's sufficient to drive enough people to the polls to keep politicians in power.

I won't go so far as to say I'm disgusted by what others do, but I am increasingly resenting having to use my phone for myriad tasks that shouldn't require a phone in the first place. Like unlocking my apartment door. It's obviously so that someone can get a recurring cut where they would have once provided a one-time semi-permanent solution (like a key, or a notepad).

I mean, maybe some of this will be blunted over time as open source slowly eats away at these utilities, but until then I view my phone like a grenade, or a drug, or a slot machine, or a money-eater.

This is excellent. It's also worth noting we don't need to fund services via supporting private enterprise, either—many services should arguably be operated by zero-profit entities. For the most part, after paying infrastructure bills and salaries, the profit motive is contrary to providing quality service over time (see: enshittification)