SkittyDog

[flagged]

Your reply strikes me as snarky and rude. You could have phrased your comment differently, and made the exact same point, but without being disrespectful to everyone who has to read your reply.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Under "In Comments"...

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

...

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

...

Please don't post shallow dismissals...

To me the original Woodstock vibe was the peace and free love part of the 60s counterculture. peace and love is not a feeling you get from korn in those times

You're not wrong about the difference in vibes. And there were plenty of other music festivals in the 90s that did feature lineups more akin to the original Woodstock... But those festivals were pretty small in comparison, because the main thrust of popular music had changed so drastically in the decades since the original.

And attendance will ultimately limit the amount of money everyone can make--organizers, bands, vendors, drug dealers, etc. The money provides a strong motivation to cater to current popular tastes, because the festival has a bigger potential audience.

And given how well-attended the festival turned out to be, I think it's safe to say that they were right... If only a couple of thousand people had turned up, that would be a different story.

You might want to read up on the concept of priming, and how it's used in psychological & neurological research. You can markedly change people's behavior by bringing up (or avoiding) particular topics that our minds can connect with subsequent behavioral options.

The classic example is talking about disgusting topics before serving someone a meal... If you tell someone a story about a sewage plant worker falling into an open vat of raw human feces, and then later contracting a bunch of diseases because the fecal matter infiltrated their mouth, nose, eyes, and ears... The people hearing that story will eat less on average, and be more likely to refuse food outright, than a control group who heard a neutral story that removes the sewage and contamination elements.

Another example: People who hear a story about a war hero saving their comrades lives by sacrificing their own are subsequently more likely to offer to help random strangers with tasks like changing a flat tire, or carrying a heavy package.

And the behavior changes are mostly transient... The effect doesn't generally last beyond a few hours or days, unless the priming process is repeated.

So researchers can use priming to explore human motivations, and reveal connections that the subjects aren't even consciously aware of. It still depends on careful experimental design, because you never really know exactly why people are responding to the priming stimulus. But if you pick your stimuli carefully, you can usually eliminate alternative possibilities pretty well.

I believe the explanation is in the 3rd-to-last paragraph:

In healthy volunteers and right- but not left-onset patients, religious belief-scores significantly increased following the aesthetic prime consisting of the ocean view (a wonderful reward) but not the death prime. (The religious ritual prime increased religious belief only inconsistently, with little impact compared with that of the ocean view.) The results directly refuted the anxiety theory of religion while supporting the notion that religiosity was spurred by the quest for unexpected reward.

He's using a concept called "priming" to study the impact that different thoughts have on his subjects receptivity to religious sentiment. If Freud's theory is correct (religion being driven mainly by our fear of death) then we would expect the people who heard the ending about witnessing someone's death to express more religious sentiment, afterwards, because the story "primed" (reminded them of) human mortality.

But that's not what he observed... Subjects who heard the death ending were not more likely to express religious sentiment.

The religious ritual ending also didn't significantly increase religion sentiment. Only the ocean view ending, with it's imagery of breathtaking natural beauty, actually achieved an increase in religious sentiment.

So it suggests that Freud's theory is incorrect.

Cocaine makes you the BEST person, way better than everybody else.

Oh, you again! It's like I mention "Cadillac Desert" and you pop out of the bathroom mirror like Bloody Mary.

I'm glad you're working on finding a more polite way to talk about things you disagree with... Your new comment is an improvement, but it's still hella low-key argumentive, and needlessly insulting to the people around you.

You need to learn how to disagree with people without making other people out to be jerks.

I'd've thought that all the downvotes on your last comment would've helped drive the point home, but I guess not. Maybe it just takes time to learn this stuff.

But as for me... Until you take some responsibility for the words you're choosing, and start making better comments, I'm still not interested in trying to have any kind of conversation with you. LMK when you want to try again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_nurse

A nurse with a Bachelor's degree, more or less

Oh man... ANOTHER "Cadillac Desert" reference. I just finished re-reading it, a month ago, and this is like the 20th time I've overheard some random comment about something related to the book. Might not just be the Frequency Illusion, I think maybe I got inspired to re-read it because of all the news about water politics, lately.

Anyhow, NAWPA is some fascinating stuff... It's completely insane and a terrible idea, but it's hard not to be impressed by the sheer size of it.

Kinda got me wondering now... Would the biggest version of NAWPA exceed the size of the Atlantropa idea, in terms of how much land area they each would flood/drain? I mean, the Mediterranean Sea is pretty big, but...

The "state" is not a unitary actor that somehow magically intuits and implements the desires of a majority of voters. All state policy, but especially legislation, is a massive hodge-podge of independent actors motivated by all sorts of factors, and very often in direct opposition to each other's interests. All those actors are just as selfish, ignorant, stupid, greedy, angry, racist, corrupt, and venal as the rest of the human race.

The state's legislative apparatus will always do (and ONLY do) that which is achieved by the outcome of all the competing interests and their efforts at lobbying, contributing, marketing, persuading, bribing, intimidating, etc, etc. Occasionally there may be room for the individual conscience of a principled actor. But most often the ethics of individuals don't mean anything in the face of the economic, political, and cultural forces that shape state policy.

Even with direct ballot intiatives, we've just shifted the target of all those lobbying efforts from the statehouse to your house. The mass of voters might be less immediately corrupt and power-hungry than professional politicians in the legislature, but we're also more ignorant, stupid, distracted, and impatient than the pros.. And since ballot initiatives because a thing, we've managed to create about as many serious problems as we've been able to solve.

There is no such thing as "easily" when it comes to making laws--unless you're a dictator with a firm grip on power.

We could imagine an infinity of possible theories that might explain why these Russian people reacted with fear at Gagarin's landing. But being possible doesn't mean something is correct, or even plausible.

Rather than space aliens, I find it far more compelling to consider that:

• Russia had been severely traumatized by WWII, less than a generation earlier. Tens of millions died in combat and of starvation.

• After WWII, Russia awas again severely traumatized by Stalinism and his political purges. For a decade, anyone who was even suspected of stepping out of line was oiable to get imprisoned or just executed.

• During the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA was attempting to train Russian expatriates in the West to return to Russia as spies and organizers of underground resistance in the event WWIII broke out. The program was a complete disaster... The CIA trained and equipped dozens of young men, and then PARACHUTED them into Eastern Bloc countries,after which none of them were ever heard from, ever again. (It's assumed they were all immediately caught and executed.)

So in the early 1960s, when some dude in a parachute lands in your village, I think it's far less speculative to assume that they were afraid Yuri Gagarin might be a Western spy.

No need for space aliens... And no need to insult the intelligence of these Russians by lumping them in with ol' Karen up in Lethbridge, who was such a simple rube that we all laugh at her for calling the police on a Stormtrooper.

Honestly, I see why the "space aliens" narrative is appealing: It's funnier! It's hilarious to imagine old timey Russian villagers, hiding in fear of space invaders.

Unless anybody reading this happens to be Russian, in which case we'd be making up silly stories that mainly serve to depeict their parents or grandparents as a bunch of simple, stupid, gullible pigeons.

And I just don't see the point in that whole line of thinking, when we already have much more plausible theories, already.

It’s hyperbolic trash though.

This is rude, and unnecessary. If your own counter-argument is actually sound, why are you bothering to label Reisner's as trash? It doesn't make you more believable--it mostly just undermines your credibility, because you apparently don't trust the soundness of your arguments to stand on their own.

Have you read the HN comment guidelines? I'll quote something that you might want to consider:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Right now, I have zero interest in engaging with you, because of the unpleasantly combatitive way you've chosen to approach the topic. What would even be the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who believes it's OK to speak to strangers like this?

Consider rewriting your comment, and maybe we can talk about the actual merits of Reisner... As it is now, good luck, and I hope you learn a better way to interact with the world.

That is a pretty good counter-example, I have got to admit... I'm not convinced, but yeah, you got a hell of a point there.

I think the US in 1938 was maybe in a distinct situation, though... For one, the US in the 30s may have been primed to thoughts of space aliens by the consumption of mass quantities of SF--radio serials, films, books, etc.

Also, the real-world news in 1938 was pretty tense, and very heavy on the specific theme of invasion... WWII was already swinging in the Pacific, and everybody in Europe was expecting the shooting to start soon. Here in the US, there was a general sense that we'd get violently drawn into it, sooner or later.

So I dunno... You definitely moved the needle for me on this one, but I'm still pretty skeptical that some isolated Siberian farmers in the 1960s would go straight for the "space aliens" explanation. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my earlier post--I'd be the last to know.

You should read "Cadillac Desert", if you live in the American Southwestern state--California, Arizona, and Nevada in particular. It has significant implications for the future survivability of large-scale civilization in the region.

Mark Reisner originally wrote the book in the early 1990s, and his predictions have turned out to be quite accurate over the last three decades.

If you want to make informed decisions, as a voter and a resident, this is probably the single most important thing you need to get educated about.

I have some friends who've done week-long ski tours in remote parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Their guides all carried serious rifles or shotguns with slugs, and made sure everyone in the party knew how to shoot.

Their closest Grizzly encounter was a bear that stumbled across them, and charged at their lead skier from ~200m out. The guide shot the bear twice, but it still managed to get within 20m of the group before it dropped.

Here in the US, I know two hikers who've been attacked by Grizzlies in the Rockies, and another guy who got jumped in Alaska. All three survived, but required medical evacuation and hospitalization... The guy in Alaska nearly bled to death from a broken rib tearing into the blood vessels feeding his kidney.

So I'm not sure what the likelihood of bear attacks would be--but it does happen, and the consequences can be quite severe.

In the early days, even just a humble farmer might think you're a space alien, or worse, an American. When Yuri Gagarin's flight re-entered he ejected and landed a little off the target zone. The first people who encountered him were perhaps a little apprehensive?

I think you're going way, waaaay far beyond the evidence to suggest that these farmers though Gagarin was a space alien. That's a funny little narrative, but I don't think it's remotely necessary.

These remote Soviet people weren't likely any stupider than you or me... Less educated, sure--but they knew what human beings looked like, and were aware of the fact that airplanes existed. This was more than a decade after WWII ended, after all.

I can think of a hundred perfectly terrestrial reasons why these isolated, remote farmers would have good reason to be apprehensive in this situation... I'd imagine they get almost zero visitors, so the sight of any strangers would probably be the big news of the year--let alone a military aviator parachuting down in bright orange clothes.

In fairness, I should confess that I'm pointing this out because it kinda bugs me for us to be looking down on these folks, as if they're children or simpletons. At the very least, that narrative seems to serve our own egos, more so than any interest in accuracy.

No, you misunderstand... by "bad faith" I meant that your original comment was not intended as an earnest, respectful, positive contribution.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, under the section "In Comments" (halfway down)...

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

...

Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

...

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

So was your original post in bad faith, or not?

Your question has an obvious, widely accepted answer... Whether that answer is right or wrong, your failure to reference it comes off as deliberately provocative.

And by your response, it seema pretty obvious: Yes, you knew full well the answer before you sarcastically asked your orignal question.

If you ask questions in bad faith, using an argumentative tone--then why are you surprised when I respond to you in the same fashion?

If you want better replies, you should try writing a better post, in the first place.

I think your inference may be backwards... Sovereign Citizen types sound like this because they're aping "legalese" in an attempt to sound authoritative to ignorant people.

But this weird, kinda archaic, jargony, overly-specific English is just how regular motions are written, by real lawyers in regular courts.

(And yes, it does sound funny, if you're not used to reading/writing it.)

I get why it sounds funny to us, but it's mainly a highly jargon-y form of language used for motions in court. When you're writing this stuff, you're expected to phrase yourself in the appropriate fashion.

There are also certain specific legal terms and phrases that work kind of like reserved words or functions in a programming langauge, because they invoke a specific legal effect in how the court needs to handle them. If you don't phrase your motion properly, your motion could be denied because it. Or maybe the judge let's it slide, but you piss them off and wear down their patience.

Anyway... For us, it sounds funny because we're ignorant of it. Just like how programming languages may sound funny to non-programmers: "If X then Y else Z" is similar enough to English, but it'll make the kids giggle if you ask them to read it aloud.

You not only have to verify that a review is coming from an actual current or former employee, but then you have to ensure that the same employee cannot write multiple reviews. If you discard all links between a reviewer account and a review, how do you do that?

Just FYI, Glassdoor does NOT try to prove that reviewers are current or former employees. Anybody can post claiming to be an employee, and Glassdoor will accept their review.

Their proof (or lack thereof) would generally be evaluated at the trial stage. This is a pre-trial procedure, so it's mostly take at face value.

If another party so moves, they could ask the court to stop the plaintiff, and the judge will make a decision. But that's not automatic--somebody has to specifically ask for it.

Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive, unpredictable, long-term costs that other humans will have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the economic benefits of the original human interference?

This is pretty basic history, with endless examples of human societies that took short-term gains by screwing with ecosystems for more complex than they could understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those costs proved so high that they wiped out the societies that came up short, when the bill came due?

Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do you know the body counts of these choices?

If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's masterwork:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert

And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo...

If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human interference in existing stable ecosystems.

Can't speak for Canada, but in the US, the jury process is a mix of black-letter law (explicit legislative acts) and administrative law (rules made by the court system under broad powers granted to it by legislation).

Tradition and precedent were the inspiration for a lot of modern law, but we explicitly re-implemented most of it via legislative and/or administrative law.

Is there something in how Canadian or English courts work that would make it impossible to just delay jury selection for the pending trials, for a week or a month, or however long it takes to mail out the next round of jury summonses?

Because the way this story is telling it, I'm getting the impression that the court is simply prioritizing its own convenience over the needs of the people getting summonsed at the shopping mall, and then compelled to appear. Which seems like the dumbest possible way to implement a jury system, because it completely ignores the legitimate needs of the citizenry to attend to their own lives.

I don't particularly want to conclude that this particular court is poorly run, to the point of incompetence... So I'm really hoping there's more to this story.

You should really make the effort to learn the math of SR, because I believe it would help keep your reasoning a little more grounded, here. At the very least, I think it would help you understand why SR still constrains FTL, even though we do live in a GR universe, at cosmological scale.

While the larger universe does depart from SR's constraints, it does not depart from the fundamental facts that disprove the possibility of FTL. The math is more complex in GR, but the conclusion is the same: FTL isn't compatible with the reality we observe... You have to invoke some kind of hidden, unobservable, untestable dicta in order to arrive at FTL.

As for excitement... If we decide to take that approach, what's wrong with me believing in Faeries and Santa Claus, because it makes the universe more interesting?

I don't know where you got the idea that our universe doesn't obey special relativity? That's an odd thing to have learned...

SR is a subset of general relatively. So SR can be used perfectly well in situations that obey the constraints under which it was designed to be used.

As for your second paragraph, I'm not qualified to answer your question. GR is an extremely rigorous subject that requires a very high level of math to understand.

But something about your tone makes me wonder if you might be engaged in some kind of motivated reasoning... That you desire the viability of FTL travel because it's exciting or romantic?

If you think that describes your feelings on the subject, then the answer is almost certainly going to be "No".

So just to start with... Every legitimate physicist accepts that time travel and other major causality paradoxes are an inevitable result of ANY mechanism that provides a meaningful version of FTL travel or communication. This is provable from the math of special relativity. You need some algebra to show it, but the proof isn't super difficult if you already understand the math of special relativity.

• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/574395/why-would... • https://selfawarepatterns.com/2019/02/03/why-faster-than-lig...

There are a lot of YT videos that discusses it, too.

But none of this is likely to convince a skeptic if you don't already have a mathematical understanding of SR. So if you're serious, you should really start by learning that.

First off -- and this should be enough by itself -- the research the Wuhan lab did hasn't appeared to have helped in a material way to fight the COVID pandemic. So they gambled, lost, and there is nothing to show for it.

You can't possibly claim that without being a qualified expert in the field. I'm not, but I have asked friends who are--and they're quite firm that this type of experimental research (1) did help speed up our COVID-19 response, and save lives, and (2) is critical to prevent future outbreaks from becoming much, much worse.

I'm not asking for journal cites or anything, but I am curious: What's the source of your conclusion that gain-of-function research didn't help prevent the COVID-19 pandemic from becoming even worse?

Yeah... I'm trying to work out how to fit it in, later this year. I have a 40hr cert that's expiring, later this year, but the stuff I'm really interested in doing requires the full 80hr WFR.

I hope that more of these courses can evolve into a hybrid online model, where you can use distance learning to spread some of the coursework out, ahead of time.