jmfayard

And who gets to decide who gets none?

For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda) or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.

Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.

That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events

That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy. Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.

Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'

I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.

Very few issues have both sides. Booleans yes, they have exactly two equally valid values. Coins also have both sides. But most issues are neither coins nor booleans.

Yep, assuming there are two equally valid positions for everything, because they have a two-party system, so there must be for every topic a GOP side and a Democrat side. Never mind that both parties have often similar bad policies on any topic, in which case you fool yourself believing to be objective while you are only repeating bipartisan dogma.

"Better than 10 for Hitler and none for anyone else". No, the critics of two-party systems don't want a single party system like Soviet Russia. They want multipartism.

And science has sometimes settled on only one theory. And in other times may have four different competing hypotheses. And other times just no idea whatsoever.

The positive side of both-sideism is that it's very easy. Count the number of sides being presented. Complain if it's not two. Being very lazy myself, I value that.

Objectivity means 5 minutes for the Jews and 5 minutes for Hitler

Jean Luc Godard thought he was making fun of idiots when he wrote that in an unrelated context, but he was actually describing a mainstream US dogma.

There is no reason why every topics must have "both sides". The number of valid sides can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 7 or 42.

$24 is the cost of knowledge, but what is the cost of ignorance?

Apparently you are really curious about getting to the bottom of this so I did my research.

For me it's a vague intuition. But women are much better are recognizing "men talk" than I am.

So I asked one woman how she does it and here is her answer

Men make comments without revealing their gender, but we can see the comments are coming from a man's point of view.

How do we know?

We have a lifetime of experience listening to a man's point of view.

In other words, they show their asses much more than they think.

The spirit of capitalism comes from the US and has a religious background. Nowadays, many countries have a strong US cultural influence, no shit. I wish I was smart enough to make this up, but it all comes from this very famous book which summary I provided. Maybe reading books is not your thing, but I find it interesting.

I like coffee a lot, so when Colombia comes up, coffee is the first thing that crosses my mind.

I understand that everyone consume different things :P

For women online in particular I'm pretty sure lots of them would rather enjoy less attention on them personally. Too much it not pleasant for _them_. I'm thinking in particular about friends who are content creators, minding her own business and receive comments on her look, insults, sexist comments, unsolicited dick pics, rape and death threats,... I'm sure sexism has nothing to do with that.

OK I'm done on this topic. Maybe there are a lots of women behind internet trolls and then I'm wrong, that's an empirical question. My comment was on "strongly disagree" vs "bullshitting"

I can't do that in general. Certain attitudes OTOH are heavily gendered, like the psychology behind internet trolls who at the simplest level is that they want everyone's attention to orbit around them.

On websites where it's anonymous I infer that from what I have seen since 25 years on websites where it's not, and from attitudes people have IRL.

I have seen 25 years of internet trolling and this kind of attitude is gendered yes. Not in a binary way but in a bimodal one. I could have avoided the point because it's obvious though. I don't hate men because as you found out I'm one myself.

Hilarious view of what is going on behind the scenes, thanks!

Gender Content bias is a systemic thing

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

Jean-Paul Sartre is shown as the most famous people born in Colombia

I think Simon Bolivar or Shakira or Gabriel Garcia Marquez or many others have a better claim to the title

Especially since Jean-Paul Sartre was born in Paris

What's weird is that wikidata has the correct info https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9364

Those are polar opposites.

A button for 'disagree strongly' should upvote a comment.

When Einstein and Niels Bohr 'strongly disagree' on quantum physics in 1927, they start a debate that makes both of them more enlightened.

When a bullshit artist, who couldn't care less about the truth, hijack a discussion to make it all about Him (it's almost always a dude), everyone become dumber.

"Moving along" is not enough because the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.

You need to actually downvote and hide it.

The article could also have been called

UK financial industry is huge

Which I guess would not have surprised or interested as much people.

Now before the financial crisis, we were already told that the financial sector was oversized because it was doing so much sophisticated innovation.

When the shit hitted the fan everybody realized that all this crazy innovation extracted much more value than it contributed to the world.

My question is: have we evidence that this has fundamentally changed because you label some financial companies as "Tech"?

"My source is that I made it up"

I have lived in France and Germany and 95+% of the articles I have seen that follow this exact pattern to use as selling argument for $SomeTechnique$ the exact number of millions or billions someone made using $SomeTechnique$ were from the US.

Perhaps you don't pay attention. It striked me because I couldn't care less about the lives of billionaires. People laugh at the 9 years old girl who wants to become Madonna but that dream is no more irrealistic and is IMHO less stupid than becoming Elon Musk.

And no, I'm not gonna make 9 babies. If I have a child one day I want to do half of the parenting.

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

Sounds like a U.S. thing too. Worshipping of rich people, who must be rich because they are virtuous (Weber) therefore if you copy their habits you can be virtuous too, become rich and go to paradise.

On my way to make 9 babies in order to become the next Elon Musk.

It will happen the day after Kamala Harris (or another democrat) wins the presidential election despite loosing the popular vote.

Most GOP states will then instantly forget their principled support for the electoral college and join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to kill it.

We know this because in 2000 the George W. Bush team thought it was (contrary to what happened) likely to win the popular vote but loose in the electoral college, and had prepared a legal fight against this scenario.

It's not even hypocrisy, they believe there are not bad things but only bad people doing it. Like in the Harry Potter book where slavery is not bad per se, only when done by bad people. If Harry Potter owns a slave that's fine because Harry is good.

The US government is a foreign government for 96% of the people, not to mention that its own citizens don't control it much.

Understandable but funny that US Americans start to care about data regulation only once the Chinese government is involved.

Asking the stores to remove one app won't do it though, time to adopt EU-like regulations.

The Bible uses PI = 3 and that's good enough for me

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

1 Kings 7:23 King James

Those experts don't understand the absolute free speech principles that Elon Musk cherishes

People always make fun of the little girl who wants to become the next Madonna. So totally unrealistic right?

And then they read startup porn and copy Elon Musk habits to become as insanely successful as him. Or at least as Peter Thiel.

I'm with the little girl. Her dream is not less realistic than the second one, but much more meaningful.

So Paul Graham has just developped the perfect classifier

"A Plan For Haters And Fanboys".

I will try to apply to it to myself

---

Well I am clearly an hater, because I think that Paul Graham says a lot of stupid shit on subjects where he lacks the ability to empathize with the real victims, like many people who are male, white, powerful, well-connected and who can basically accomplish whatever the fuck they want to accomplish. Why don't all those poor victims just do the same, right?

This inflated ego leads him to be a jerk more often than necessary, and write things that are obviously wrong (but not for him) on some subjects where he is a like a snowflake who thinks he is the real victim being attacked. A bit like all those Trump voters who think that the problem with racism in the USA is that white people like them are being unfairly critized as being a racist.

At that point, the Paul Grahan classifier has all the necessary signals to classify me as an hater.

----

On the other hand...

I am obviously a fanboy because I genuinely believe that Paul Graham is a very generous, bright mind who has worked a lot and helped thousands of people.

I know for a fact that he has helped me a lot, I've read pretty much everything he wrote and was nodding furiously all of the time. I can tell you my ten favorites articles from him.

Well actually, let's do it. I really liked

- "Lisp for web-based applications" - "A plan for span" - "If Lisp is So Great" - "What You Can't Say" - "The Python Paradox" - "The Age of the Essay" - "How to Start a Startup" - "What I did this summer?" - "You weren't meant to have a boss" - "Ramen Profitable" - "Startup = Growth""H - "Do Things That Don't Scale" - "Default Alive Or Default Dead?"

Oops, I told 13 instead of 10, and I had to force myself to stop here.

That's what fanboys do.

---

In summary, I understand the tentation to have "A Plan For Fanboys/Haters" like he had a "Plan For Spam".

Frankly that would be nice if that was possible, I would buy it, just say your price.

But I'm starting to think that real human beings are more complex than this nice dichotomy.

I think Paul Graham is like a normal human being, with wonderful parts and deep flaws, pretty much like all of us.

That leads him to be right and helpful on a lot of subjects, and also to be wrong and a jerk on other topics.

Since he is a bright guy, he would have no problems to discover why he was wrong, if he applied his own principles to those topics.

And he would apply his own principles if he was interested.

His output being deeply wrong shows that he is not interested right now by those topics.

Ok, fine.

It's not a free market. Apple has a monopoly on Mac OS alas. Most people don't change their operating system and habits just like that.

Not directly what you ask, but "Terms of Service didn't read" is great

https://tosdr.org/#