HBlix

Observation and exploration are part of science, but only when mated with the rest of the scientific method. On its own “observation and exploration” can be equally applied to playing in beach sand. If you’re not forming and testing hypotheses, analyzing data from experiment, and attempting to replicate results, you’re not engaged in science. You can’t pick one or two elements of the scientific method and call it science, anymore than you can claim that buying running shoes and standing at the start of a marathon is racing.

I think you bring up interesting points, but in Neri Oxman’s case the answer seems to be that the science is essentially absent in its entirety. I won’t pretend to have a good answer to “what is art,” but the question “what is science” is much easier to answer. Her work may be art, but it utterly fails the test of science insofar as it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method. She’s a scientist in the same way that a color therapist is a medical doctor.

Better examples of the intersection of science and art might be found in the work of someone like Buckminster Fuller. The nature of science being what it is, the science probably has to come first, with the art emerging from it

Has the world gone crazy?

The funny thing is that people who feel like Brexit, Trump and so on are crazy would say yes, and people who think that Brexit and Trump are the best things to happen in long time will say yes for opposite reasons.

Some people can change to some degree, some can’t. Some people for example can recover from PTSD with time and talk therapy, and if you insist on others doing that they’ll end up killing themselves. Not taking medication is just as much of a fallacious “one-size-fits-all” solution as insisting that everyone take medication.

"Nothing personal", you attacked the team, not just me. If you want to do that all day long, go for it.

I’m done with attempts to frame yourself or your “team” as a wronged party.

But what I'm asking you to do, as a better course of action, or on top if you prefer, is say what "existing solutions" are superior and why they win. We started with baseline ad blocking and some of our users, who see the ecosystem problem of free-riding (which you still dismiss)

I don’t dismiss it, I encourage it. I’ve actively stated several times that it’s a model in need of a bullet in the neck. I’ve pointed out that much ad-supported content and “journalism” exists on a scale between useless and toxic. Moreover, the ad industry itself is inseparable from the industry of information brokering, creating demand for crap, and the subsequent environmental catastrophe of modern consumer culture. The death of it, and the noisy bollocks which exists to draw attention to it would be a good thing. Given their history they don’t deserve more chances, and it’s reasonable to suspect that even if they started off allowing for good intentions, over time the envelope would be pushed until we were back where we are now.

I understand that you disagree with what I’m saying on several levels, but the good news is that ad blocking is free and easy, not to mention popular compared to what you’re attempting.

asked us to build an option for giving back. So we prototyped with Bitcoin, and when that got expensive and cut off users who could not buy it, we created the Basic Attention Token instead. Again if you dislike our ethics, no need to rehash. But I'm still interested in how you think pure blocking, AKA "free riding", will result in a superior outcome for anyone in the long run. Publisher revenues have been falling for years, decades if you look at newspapers. How do your top ten sites keep their lights on?

Less noise, more signal. Will “free riding” kill loads of clickbait, outrage factories, and “journalism” that is really a collection of affiliate links? Yes, and it’s a feature, not a bug. As a bonus it could even encourage a more functional and less societally destructive means of remuneration for content creators that isn’t mediated by profiteering sociopaths who call themselves advertisers.

If you had a childhood full of physical abuse, and your right leg was frequently broken until it became malformed, then the solution might involve crutches. All of which is to say, just because the damage done is in the past, doesn’t mean that it can’t have lasting effects you can’t just wish away. The developing human brain, it has been shown time and again, undergoes permanent changes associated with abusive environments. Those are real, physical changes that may require interventions beyond talking or therapy. It’s not just learned insecurity, it’s the biochemical changes wrought by years of stress during a formative period.

You seem to be conflating criticism of your actions with criticism of you personally. That’s not a game worth playing. As you said I’m questioning your motives in the context I already laid out, of existing solutions which are superior for the consumer. I’ll leave it to others who have already commented extensively to question the technical means.

It’s also worth pointing out that I’ve explained the core issue I have with your plan have nothing to do with your motives or ethics. I’m not sure how many times I need to repeat the idea that something like uBlock Origin is a superior performer, and “but the ad-supported content!” argument is unmoving for reasons I’ve already stated. It’s not that I’ve failed offered a broader perspective, it’s just that you’ve focused a lot on what you perceive as a personal attack, despite it being nothing of the sort.

You picked up the ad hominem axe.

Did I really? Looking back over our brief exchange I’m not seeing it, you just seemed to use my supposed impropriety as a justification to turn this into a fight. It’s a pattern that seems to hold throughout comments on this thread when you’re questioned on the ethics or wisdom of BAT. A more cynical person would suspect that your position is sufficiently untenable that you’re employing a bit of the dead cat strategy.

Sci-Hub is pretty amazing for any paper that has been out for as long as most sources on Wikipedia have been, so in truth you can almost always read them in full.

It’s hard to take image advice from someone who seriously goes from accusations of personal attacks to “Change it” in the same sentence. I’ll file that next to taking conflict de-escalation tips from Linus Torvalds. More topically, I have no problem with you trying to strike it rich down the line, only with the thin veneer of altruism you seem driven to coat those motives with.

On the upside, if Dvorak thought 5G was crap, then it’s practically guaranteed to be a fantastic and successful technology.

“More benign” yet still cancerous, is the answer to your question. I’ve already explained that the majority of ad-supported content is hot garbage, more clutter than content. I’ve pointed out that the ad industry has decades of questionable-at-best track record, so “wretched” naturally follows. I’ll grant that it’s less wretched than the current state of advertising affairs, yet more wretched than currently available ad blockers.

Nobody at Brave is getting richer right now, we are a startup.

“Right now” is doing some terribly hard work in that claim.

Second point: I don't have to convince anyone that ads are necessary to fund most of the visible web.

You’re selling an ICO based on that premise, I’d argue that yes you do very much need to convince at least some people of that. In addition I’d argue that you need to convince people (against the evidence of their own experience) that the majority of the “visible web” isn’t a dumpster fire that would be better off dead.

I think the web as it exists today is bloated with “content” that could never survive without that money, and the loss of that “content” would be a gain for the web. I’m hard-presses to think of many worthwhile examples of ad-supported content; certainly HN here doesn’t take that path.

Alternatively you can take the drugs and die surprised at ~85.

It’s also an incredible vehicle for money laundering.

Opting-in by default is refreshing to see, and offering to share some portion of the spoils more equitably is too. Still, I fundamentally dislike advertising and find that content supported by it is often grossly inferior to other content. I’m not convinced that the middle path here is the right one, rather than evangelizing ad-blocking and forcing the internet to adopt alternative revenue streams. Slapping an ICO on the problem is certainly a good way to get people invested in defending Brave, but I’m not convinced that it has any lasting value.

Cutting advertisers off at the knees does, and as a stance it isn’t subject to being degraded through its relationship to advertisers and their money.

I think given what the advertising industry has been for years, it’s arguable that attempts to sustain them are fairly evil. Being able to opt-in to it is still far less laudable than promoting ad-blocking (but of course that doesn’t allow for you to go ICO and rake it in). It’s not as bad as opt-out, but it’s still wretched, and no amount of “for the content creators” hand-wringing or tokenizing changes that. I do see how blending an ICO with this has the potential to make the people behind Brave richer regardless of long-term success or adherence to current ethics.

When has DRM ever worked as more than a temporary measure? Also if car DRM is like games and software DRM, it will punish the honest user while not even remotely harming the thief!

At what point do we stop calling it an occupation, like it’s a temporary state of affairs, and call it what it is? None of us live in a land that was free from a history (some very recent) of violent conquest, and to be clear I know I’m taking a purely amoral stance here. I’m not saying that Israel is the “good guy” I’m just noting that they clearly won, and international fantasies aside, that’s done.

So when is it just a conquest and not an occupation? 70 more years? 170? When does Israel stop being a special case the rest of the world uses as a distraction from their own recent history of violent conquest? Do you seriously think Palestinians have a future that isn’t as a diaspora of refugees? If we’re just into pure quality of life, I’d argue that resettlement in Jordan, SA, Egypt and other neighbors would be better than leaving them stuffed into a few small regions of a country they no longer control and never will again. Of course then they can’t be used by oppressive Arab regimes as a scapegoat and distraction.

I want to say that I realize how unpopular this view is likely to be here, and I’d just ask that you set aside what you want to be, and just consider what is. I’m not arguing for the right or wrong of the situation, just the reality and immutability of it. I don’t think it’s very fair that the U.S. is built on the graves of a whole series of cultures and peoples, but I also recognize that calling the U.S. an occupying force would be a farce.

It’s a bit of a reality bias, for most poeple’s living memory. Politics and what people wish were true aside, the outcome for Palestinians is more or less a forgone conclusion. Acknowledging what is rather than a fantasy of what think should be isn’t really a bias, it’s reporting facts. In the same way that fact sheets on America will talk a lot about what America is today, and not a history lesson about how it was colonized by Europeans.

It might be safer to be in one rather than walking near one, or driving alongside one. Sadly those are a lot harder to opt-out of!

Why? You’ll come out older, less healthy, poorer, and full of regret that you spent your time building casinos for children and people with gambling issues. If you’re going to work for a FAANG anyway, at least you can sell your integrity for a much higher price and better conditions.

The “upside” is that it’s never been easier to not play AAA games. Between derivative content rehashes yearly, insane microtransaction schemes, content cut into pieces and locked behind multiple season passes and dlc, and the endless busywork “gameplay” designed to maiximize engagement and money over time at the direct expense of fun... fuck it.

Look at the new Assassin’s Creed game, which is a reskin of Origins, plus a dozen pages of “buy this shit!” The xp system is rigged to make it a slog and a grind unless you buy “boosts” and it’s a giant map filled with what amount to chores. I feel badly for kids who grow up thinking that skinner boxes connected to a publisher’s bank account are what games have to be, but I’m not touching that stuff.

Meanwhile there are great mid-tier games, indie games, and the very occasional AAA effort that doesn’t punish the player for playing. It only really gets hard when something like CDPR makes great games that don’t monetize outrageously, but also famously treat their employees like dirt.

Starbucks coffee drinks are to me what I’d imagine it would be like to gargle a sheet cake. Not just sweet, but cloying, and very fatty.

Writing things down is nice, but is sadly inadequate unless enough people later read what was written, and in a timely fashion, and the act on it. Otherwise you just have what we’ve dealt with for millennia, a record of history repeating itself.

I see what you mean, but as you say their midterm elections are coming up, and no one knows if the Republicans will still have the necessary votes after. If Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, their chance to force someone like him onto the court may go with him. Beyond that I don’t think you can underestimate just how little a lot of senators care about what Kavanaugh did to women in his youth. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham... they seem like people for whom conscience is just a formality.

Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.

It comes down to this: they believe that he’ll swing the court in favor of their chosen policies, be it restricting abortion or whatever else. If Bill Cosby or Ted Bundy were in a position to do that, they’d defend them too. It’s not about good faith arguments, it’s 100% about the end result, and the ends justifying the means.

At this point I’m left questioning his sanity, or his intelligence, and the latter seems relatively sound. What is wrong with this guy, that he can’t just stfu and help his many endeavors succeed?! Shut up Elon! Shut. Up. SpaceX matters too much to be at risk because you have the self control of a toddler.