HN user
Where's the backlash against this: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
So, some people at the GCHQ have discussed doing these things. However, is there any evidence that they've actually done a whole lot?
I don't really consider Isreal a Western country, but in any case, that is interesting.
Do you have any examples of Western governments doing this?
In the Western world, there seem to be this prevalent ideal that the people should control the government and not the other way around. If a Western government hired people to influence politics like this, wouldn't there be a backlash?
Interesting. This makes me wonder about how many blog/forum posts in the Western world that are written by PR agencies. Not working for governments, of course, but for corporations and NGOs.
Freedom is very important to me. Keeping animals locked up makes me uncomfortable. Of course, the fact that I enjoy being free, does not necessarily mean that freedom is important to animals as well. Perhaps animals are too dumb to appreciate freedom.
I have tried eating a vegan diet a couple times. I was surprised by how much delicious vegan food there is. I actually didn't miss the eating of meat much. However, my energy levels were really low, so I went back to eating meat.
Isn't it interesting that calls for animal rights are strongest among those who don't interact with any animals except pets?
That's an interesting observation. My impression is that the most intelligent humans typically move to large cities, whereas the dumbest ones remain in the rural areas. Most farmers don't seem terribly bright (there are of course exceptions). Could this have something to do with it?
Yes, in tech it's pretty safe to take English as the lingua franca here.
Another thing, that was not mentioned in the article, is that the government of Estonia seems to be doing a better job of managing the country than the governments of most other European countries. Estonia seems to have relatively little bureaucracy and relatively low taxes.
For example, I currently live in Norway. If I wanted to start a new company, it seems that it would be better for me to move to Estonia and start it there, rather than do it here in Norway. I wonder how feasible that would be to do, though, without me speaking Estonian? Other than talking to tech people, can you live in Estonia and get by with only English?
China did a huge study on cancer. T. Colin Campbell wrote about this in his book The China Study. It looks like the more animal protein you eat, the more likely you are to get cancer.
Taking a cursory glance at the cancer rates in different countries, it does seem to correlate with the amount of animal protein eaten:
http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-cancer-fre...
https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/deaths-from-cancer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_milk_cons...
The only country that looks kinda odd is South Korea...
There also have been several studies on protein and IGF-1 (a growth hormone). The more protein you eat, the higher levels of IGF-1 you get:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1441.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10883675?dopt=Abstract
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1596498
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673798/
Just mentioning a few here, but there are even more studies on this.
Also, there are the people with the Laron syndrome. They have some error in their IGF-1 receptors, and have very low rates of cancer.
Yes, perhaps in the future, movie and computer game studios will lobby hardware manufacturers like Intel, AMD and ARM for locked-down hardware (non-free BIOS etc.) in order to protect their DRM.
I think general purpose computers and entertainment computers really need to be separate. Movies and AAA computer games cost a lot of money to produce, so I understand that the studios want to protect their investments with DRM. However, locked-down computers that users don't control themselves are fundamentally incompatible with a free society.
The only solution I can see for people to both preserve their freedom and enjoy some AAA content is to own 2 computers: 1 for AAA entertainment and another for everything else. Fortunately, computers are getting cheap and tiny.
Good point. I admit that I'm not very good at getting laid myself. However, if you eat healthily, you will look much better than if you eat unhealthily. We know that men are attracted to good looking women. However, women seem to be attracted to high-status men, and put less value good looks.
I wish there were some studies that compared how much success healthy and good looking but relatively poor men would have with women, compared to unhealthy and bad looking but relatively rich ones.
I hope I did not get too off topic here, but I think maybe it's possible that this is part of the explanation. That people want status symbols in order to get laid, and thus have less time for health. So maybe I was wrong about the Average Joe having a low intelligence...
If you read a few books on nutrition, you will learn that refined sugar is unhealthy. This is not hard for anybody with half a brain to figure out.
As for working two part-time jobs etc., many of the people doing this buy status symbols like SUVs, iPhones, big houses etc. If they didn't buy so much unnecessary stuff, they wouldn't need to work so much.
The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar.
Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most people were like me, they would read the label and refuse to buy anything that unnecessarily contained sugar. The companies doing this would lose money, and soon stop doing it. But the opposite has happened. Why?
There can only be one explanation: most consumers are dumb. However, when you read about stuff like this in the mainstream media, it's always framed as if "big evil corporations" is the whole problem. That "average Joe" has a low intelligence is never mentioned. Of course, the media wants as many consumers as possible, too, so calling most of their potential readers/viewers stupid is probably a bad strategy, even though it's the truth.
I'm actually not familiar with criminal background checks, but they work like this right: if you get caught for some crime, and spend time in prison, then you will have a criminal record, and be discriminated against for the rest of your life?
This seems very unreasonable to me. Perhaps some very narrow/limited discrimination would make sense. Like if someone gets caught several times for drunk driving, then perhaps that person should not be allowed to have a drivers license for a long time afterwards. But if someone gets caught for smuggling drugs, then that person should never be allowed to drive a taxi for the rest of their life? That seems unreasonable.
Some groups, such as people with criminal records, sex workers, the mentally ill, people who enjoy other drugs than alcohol and until recently homosexuals, are treated very badly in some democracies. However, it's interesting that the mainstream press never makes much fuss about such human rights violations in democracies. In a democracy the majority has the power. Also, it's the goal of the mainstream press to sell as many newspapers as possible, get as many page views as possible etc. in order to make as much money as possible. Thus, they need to appeal to the majority. Pointing out that the majority is behaving in an unreasonable way will not endear them to said majority so they don't do that much.
I wonder if Universal Basic Income would also solve the copyright problem? You know, in the old analog world (with printing presses etc.), copyright worked pretty well, but in a digital world, it has many problems.
Personally, I'm not terribly keen on living in a world where every single book I read (and how much time I spend on each page, where I stop reading etc.), every single song I listen to, every single movie I watch, every single computer game I play (and how long I play etc.) are stored forever in some central database.
However, with Universal Basic Income, people would be able to write books, create art etc. and simply release it for free.
Wouldn't you be able to maintain a home in Prague PLUS another home in southern Europe somewhere for less money than it would take to maintain one home in the Bay Area? Of course, that depends on you being able to work in a location-independent way...
I wonder if they track you? Some other companies who sell digital downloadable products insert your name, address etc. into the files somewhere.
Selling downloadable digital products strikes me as a bad business model. Bad for either the companies or the consumers. DRM is bad since it won't last forever. When the company goes out of business, "your" products will no longer work. Personally, I don't like tracking either. What if my computer gets hacked, stolen or that I simply forget to securely wipe a disk before throwing it away - will the company who sold me stuff blame me for pirating, if the files end up on some pirate site? On the other hand, if a company does neither DRM nor tracking, then they're very vulnerable to piracy.
Seems to me that rentals/streaming is a better business model. Would it be better if publishers like No Starch Press sold time-limited access (like say 5 or 10 years) to a website where you could read the books? Of course, dedicated pirates would be able to pirate that, but it would be inconvenient for ordinary people.
It's seems pretty obvious to me that pigs and cows have feelings and are somewhat intelligent, so I'm reluctant to eat those. But I'm really wondering about dumb animals like chickens, fish and insects. Do they have feelings? Does a chicken or a fish suffer when imprisoned?
Instead of looking at capitalism vs. socialism, I think it would make more sense to look at free markets vs. unfree markets. Many businesses will lobby politicians for laws and regulations to protect themselves against competition, for subsidies, for special tax deductions etc. Private banks cooperate with the government in order to create fiat money, which primarily benefit those who are already rich etc.
You can certainly have capitalism and an unfree market at the same time. Guess that's called crony capitalism. It's a very different beast from a free market.
Good example of doing something well, that probably shouldn't have been done at all. This will make London a better city to live in, causing even more people to move there. This will make it even bigger than it already is. This will make it an even more attractive target for terrorism. This will cause the UK to enact even more police state like laws on surveillance etc.
Why on earth don't they spend that money building a subway in some other UK city instead?
This article basically says that having a wealthy non-working elite is bad. However, I'm not so sure. This non-working elite won't simply sit staring into a wall all day. Aren't many of them likely to get into cultural and artistic stuff?
Take language, for example. I think it's interesting to look at French. Seems like the guttural r became common after the French revolution. Why would anybody use that sound for communication? It's basically the same sound that you make when trying to get rid of slime from your throat. I can imagine that French used to be a really beautiful language, back in the day when France had an aristocratic elite. Seems like the French working class has basically ruined it. Or is this just a coincidence?
The English language in the USA has not suffered as badly. But I find it interesting that Americans put more weight on the r sound than the British. I've come across people who like the guttural r because they say it makes them sound more "authoritative". I guess people who have poor self-esteem often compensate with brand-name clothing and other status symbols. Maybe they compensate with language, too? Other than that, a non-working elite will have much more time to develop a refined taste, which in the case of language, is something that everyone will benefit from (assuming everybody else ape this elite).
Good article. However, there is one thing that is never mentioned in the mainstream press when discussing why some countries are doing better than others: the intelligence of the populations. The average IQ in Brazil is 87, while it's 98 in the USA.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Intelligence%20and%20the...
Highest suicide rates occur during the spring, around the vernal equinox not around the darkest time of the year.
If you don't take vitamin D pills or consume (lots of) cod liver oil, then your vitamin D levels will be lowest in the spring. If I remember correctly, at around 60 degrees north, you have to wait until the end of April until you get vitamin D from the sun.
“There has been fast urbanization in India that’s brought with it a change in dietary patterns and lifestyle,” ... “It’s leading to this huge jump in cardiovascular disease.”
I'm guessing that urbanization means less exercise and more stress. But I'm curious as to how the diet has changed in India lately? More meat, more refined sugar, and more unhealthy cooking oils?
The "Guardian-reading lentil-munching sandal-wearing lefty" is a popular caricature
I find some of these caricatures interesting. Like how many leftists are vegans or vegetarians, and how many libertarians are meat-lovers. You would perhaps think that diet should have no correlation with political opinions, but it certainly seems to have.
Or take clothing. Among leftists, there seems to be more people wearing stuff like sandals, colorful clothing, dreadlocks, piercings etc. than among right-wingers or libertarians. When I see pictures of libertarians or right-wingers, they often seem to be wearing conformist looking clothes, such as suits. Is there a reason for this?
In order to do well economically, you probably need to be careful not to offend other people, so you cannot express yourself too much. People who express themselves more (wear what they want to, rather than what is inoffensive), are probably more likely to become economic losers. And if you're an economic loser, I guess left-wing politics (tax the rich!) is appealing.
Norway before the discovery of North Sea oil was one of the poorest nations in Europe.
Not really. In 1969, the GDP per capita of Norway was $9,899. Compare that to Sweden ($12,540), UK ($10,552), Ireland ($6,089), Germany ($10,440), Finland ($8,878), Italy ($9,566), Portugal ($4,987) etc.
http://www.worldeconomics.com/Data/MadisonHistoricalGDP/Madi...
I just read a science fiction book where this kind of technology was used - Proxima by Stephen Baxter. Great book!
Perhaps this depends on the speed of your brain? You know, different people score differently on IQ tests. For example, some score 140 while others score 70. I read (in the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, I think) that what an IQ test basically does, is measuring the speed of your brain.
So I guess intelligent people will be able to understand everything on 2x while dumb ones may not.
Some of these designs look amazing. One thing is for sure, trees make cities much more pleasant wherever they are, whether along tree-lined streets, in parks or I guess on skyscrapers.
Perhaps putting trees on the ground is more practical, but the conclusion to this article makes no sense: "A treescraper approach suffers the same problem, but magnified: it lifts trees out of shared public spaces entirely, putting them up where they can be seen by many but enjoyed by few. Thus removed, they become more like window dressing, green ornaments rather than social activators." If you're seeing the trees, you're enjoying them. Trees are "social activators"? Whaaaat? Is this yet another attempt by a journalist at manufacturing some sort of outrage, in order to drive page views? Why turn treescrapers into some social justice issue?
So the article says that there are currently about 3 trillion trees, down from about 6 trillion when humans started with agriculture, and then cites an ecologist about how insane this is. But, if you go back even further, wouldn't there be less trees again? I watched the documentary "The Green Planet" a while ago. If I remember correctly, it said that before humans greatly reduced the number of grazing animals in Europe by hunting, the forests in Europe were not dense like today. They were more like parks, with many grassy fields, since obviously many trees did not get the chance to grow tall before being eaten by those grazing animals.
I've seen several dating sites that give you the option to only show profiles with a picture. However, I've never seen a dating site that gives you the option of only showing profiles that contain more than say 2 sentences. I think that would have been far more useful.