aestetix

For some reason the form chopped it off, so the direct link is: https://www.hope.net/talks/#What%E2%80%99s-Your-Age-Again?-T...

How about applying political pressure to countries like China and India that do not care about emissions control and pollution? :)

I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament.

Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.

I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.

Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!

There were a few news outlets (I think maybe the Washington Post?) that got copies of recordings of these insane lectures when Peter Thiel did them in San Francisco. I think it would be in the public interest for them to release the lectures in full.

Maybe people should put some pressure on these outlets to do so.

Oh wow! I hadn't seen that. That's really great! All of them should be listed there, and should have been public all along.

There are two stories here. One is the alleged wrongdoing. The second is the fact that the Washington Post has a name of a former DOGE employee. I'm far more interested in the second story than the first.

The Post is not naming the former DOGE member or company because it has not independently confirmed the accusations in the complaint.

Why not? Shouldn't the public be allowed to learn who all the DOGE employees were? Federal employees are public record, are they not?

Yes, it feels like another round of the same old tired "force everyone to use legal names online to save the children" that has been pushed continuously since the Internet driver's license of the 90s.

It will not save any children. It will destroy privacy, destroy free speech, and give lots of money to whatever corporation wins the bid for supplying the tech.

And of course, when that corporation gets hacked and all the personally identifiable information is put on the dark web, nobody will be held accountable.

Peter Thiel knows about the anti-christ...

Here is another idea for how to solve this:

Why not produce a second kind of phone that is for kids. Maybe have it linked to their parents accounts on a hardware level. The kidphone is physically restricted somehow to only installing certain apps, so that parents can ensure they are safe.

This approach would put the power back into hands of parents, keep the kids safe, and also prevent all this intrusive age verification stuff from happening.

Also it is a lot easier to police. You could physically look at the phone the child is using to make sure it is a kidphone. If not, then they are committing a crime, similar to a child smoking a cigarette.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Don't forget the extremely loaded context surrounding Alcibiades.

I was not moving goalposts. I was saying that the way we interpret the words has changed over time, and therefore we are taking words that meant one thing in 1957 and reinterpreting them to fit assumptions for today. Thus the semantic drift creates a shift.

To address the other point, I think we're missing a question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or expand their scope beyond what might be considered reasonable.

I think this is a natural tendency within human nature, especially when a governing body is given some power. Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding documents to include some of the new powers they want. I think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU. Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and France, etc.

That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree that those words meant something quite different then than they do now?

I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people forget the reasons why the ECHR cares so deeply about privacy. I'm not sure why Denmark is pushing it so hard, but governments have long feared and hated encryption.

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?

The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

It's because he knows about the Antichrist.

Can we get a black bar for Dr. Newby?

What's funny about this article is that it seems to focus on the Republic without addressing any of his other dialogues. What about the aporetic dialogs where there are no clear answers? What about his Parmenides where he rips to shreds his own golden theory of forms?

To say that he got "everything" wrong, there's an assertion that we now have some "correct" answer which supercedes Plato. Can we now say with confidence what defines justice, which in many ways was the point of the Republic? What about defining love, the topic of the Symposium?

Rather than taking an arrogant modernist high horse and saying Plato was wrong about everything, it might behoove to highlight some of the questions Plato raised, and see how well we can answer them today.

I would prefer that they either stay small, or if they try to grow, do so without sacrificing their customer support system.

American companies, startups in particular, have terrible support. It's really nice to have actual contact with someone when an issue arises.

Does that mean Gitlab Duo can run Doom?

I thought the point of the movie was to claim that Vermeer was nothing special, and Tim's effort to recreate the painting was supposed to prove that. I think the galleries would disagree with that point, otherwise they would not care whether Vermeer actually painted them.

And yes, both of my points are speculation, fueled by an immense dislike for the movie.

I highly recommend against watching the movie. The main figure, Tim Jenison, comes off as an arrogant know-it-all, reducing art to a technique, and insulting people along the way. In the movie, multiple times he said "I have never done this before, but how hard could it be?"

I'll note two parts of the movie that support my view. First, if his art is so great, then why is it not displayed all over the place? He has a few alleged experts giving praise without criticism, and in the end, it is on the wall in his bedroom. Surely, if the art were that easy to recreate, galleries would be demanding his piece?

Second, notice how they never actually show the real painting. In fact, at one point they make it out to be a conspiracy, that the painting is being kept in some back room nobody can access. I would loved to have seen the real painting side-by-side with Tim's alleged reproduction. I suspect they didn't push to hard for access, because it would have ruined their narrative.

Spamming random employees gov e-mails on the internet is a disservice to tax payers money to put it lightly.

They aren't random, they are DOGE employees. And at the moment, we don't even know what the role of DOGE is in the US government. Is Elon Musk a cabinet member, despite not being confirmed by the Senate? If DOGE exists solely as an advisory body, then why do they have the power to fire employees of other agencies (which have been ratified by Congress)?

So rather than being upset about posting public email addresses of public employees, I would say the disservice to taxpayers is allowing an unelected agency to make decisions about other agencies with no Congressional oversight.

As for "is there a law" I think this is implicit in the nature of representation. If you vote for someone to represent you, and after they are elected you have no way to contact them, how do they actually represent you? I'm not suggesting people should harass DOGE employees or say bad things to them, just that we need more transparency in general.

It's not personal information, and it's not random people. It is the government email addresses of government employees, and yes, that should be public, as is the case for all other government employees at every level.

If it were something personal like a home address or phone number, that would be different.

But your partner's government contact info (name and email) is already accessible, either via a government website or via FOIA. The issue here is that the DOGE employee info was not accessible before, and 2600 is being penalized for publishing it. Regardless of what they say in the article (provided it's not incitement to violence or something), the point is that the names and emails should have been public already.

I actually submitted this two days ago, as you can see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=aestetix

I wonder why it's showing "2 hours ago" and it's now showing up.

Geez.

It seems like the only way to get health insurance in the US that actually helps you get health care is to get elected to Congress.

Yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of amateur detectives tossing around half-baked allegations. I do find it interesting that despite the massive multi-million dollar dragnet surveillance apparatus, this guy was apparently able to get away without any of the cameras getting a decent photo.

Maybe now they will change their stupid pricing plan and let people pay monthly.

Edit: I did not see before that Sid had cancer. I send him wishes for a good recovery!

Setting aside religious discussion, what I found interesting is that the shroud has a lot of things that we simply cannot explain. For example, we have been unable to replicate the image as it exists (I think he said 200 nm thick), using highly advanced UV technology. If we can't figure it out now, how on earth would someone have created it centuries ago? I found other details, such as the absense of the photo-negative impression where blood stains were, fascinating.

I also thought the debunking of the 1988 "findings" made a lot of sense.

I'm not saying that it is "authentic" in that it is the impression of Christ from the Resurrection. What I am saying is that using our best scientific methods, we still have no explanation for how it came to exist.

I suppose I should ask, what kind of evidence are you looking for that would make something convincing to you?