spynxic

The proposed solution of depopulation is based on a flawed premise. It isn't necessarily true that a growing population needs greater access to fossil fuel. Rather, as access to fossil fuel grows so can the population.

It's interesting to see the range of perspectives on work put forth in this thread. I'd only point out how strange it is that the question of what is being worked towards isn't more often in these discussions. I can only imagine that is because there is predominate perception of individuals as competitors rather than allies. Unfortunately such a perception keeps the masses grasping for their share rather than promoting a common drive towards abundance.

natural (comparative more natural, superlative most natural) 1. That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem. 2. Of or relating to nature. 3. Without artificial additives. 4. As expected; reasonable. ------ mechanical (comparative more mechanical, superlative most mechanical) 1. (now rare) Characteristic of someone who does manual labour for a living; coarse, vulgar. 2. Related to mechanics (the branch of physics that deals with forces acting on mass). 3. Related to mechanics (the design and construction of machines) 4. Done by machine.

(These definitions were sourced from Wiktionary)

I hope these senses of the terms natural and mechanical help with drawing a clear distinction between what is authentically natural and what is not. If you seek further context about the distinction then search out for senses of the terms nature and artificial. Also, in response to the high regard for labor productivity, remember that efficiency can be a force for both creation and destruction.

Note that the capabilities introduced by telephone-based technology also presented issues that were seldom entertained by the minds of people. This was also true for the car and horse VS the mere walking traveler.

Telephones/Telegrams allow for quick communication at the cost of guaranteed integrity of the information (in the case of an eavesdropper altering data in transit), at the cost of privacy and at the cost of reliability. None of these issues have to be problems faced by the users but all have the capacity to be introduced by the service providers at leisure or as a byproduct of their foresight.

Telephones, telegrams, cars, horses, houses, boats, schools and governments have all brought with them new forms of dependence -- and people have thus far been able to perform cost-benefit analysis of and bring innovation to these technologies. However, it seems that today more and more people are incapable of coming to true results when performing an analysis on the integrity of today's technologies and service providers, perhaps out of naivety -- and this is likely the product of not understanding the technology well enough to move on, to develop an alternative platform, or to properly govern one's activity on the platform to mitigate perceived risks.

Recidivism rates were actually higher than those who just were sent to prison with a 67% recidivism rate for halfway house residents compared to 60% for prison-only convicts.

In this comparison, the virtue of each institution has been blindly discarded in favor of highlighting the substantial failures of both. That is -- "Because both institutions have failed at achieving their intent, neither institution appears to be capable of achieving a good result."

If we were to include the virtue designated by each approach then it should be clear to see the short term & long term differences between incarceration and rehabilitation.

And of course those rates are just within 3 years. They get much higher over time.

Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

---

In response to the opinion you've stated:

In my opinion the major problem is once a culture develops around criminality it becomes practically impossible to detach the criminality from the culture, as resisting reform becomes part of the culture.

In response to the assertion you've made:

Prison is not seen as game over. It's just another part of the game, and prison time is worn as a badge of honor once people are out, as it shows how 'hard' they are, and gains instant respect.

And in response to the questions you've raised:

The more important question then is where did this culture come from, how did it emerge and spread, and how could that be stopped in the future?

Reformation as an act is a change of system and not a change in culture. Reformation will lead to a favorable cultural shift if and only if the system effectively addresses the needs of the individuals within the culture.

1. Anything less than reformation is utter neglect. 2. Accompanying neglect is malnutrition. 3. Cultures don't develop with criminality as an end all be all. Cultures develop with nutrition as an end all be all.

To suggest that your concerns and what constitutes a single voter issue for you is wrong is condescending.

Since you think net neutrality is a stupid single voter issue then I suggest it not be one for you.

This argument seems to have finished on the wrong point.

It isn't that net neutrality or any other issues have more or less value (although they intrinsically do -- that's for the individual to decide). Instead it's that single issue voting is severely short-sighted since the very same politician may support several other policies contradicting your own well-being.

Yes the example above is extreme but this is what it attempts to convey.

Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater".

I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire.

Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event

You are right, both sides are to blame, but this don’t make any of the them better.

(Both sides refer to the broadcast/online media & commercial/political ad campaigns)

Blame can only be placed on either party if there exists the prior assumption that people should believe all things which are presented to them as fact. If this assumption does not exist and without facilities responsible for fact-checking then it's only the individual that is responsible for dividing fact from fiction.

If the choice is between saving the lives of the poor with corruption vs letting them die without I would choose the former any day.

Corruption inherently makes the system insolvent, and in the worst-case, will result in a major debt if not addressed early on.

No, just preface into their intended functions.

Edit: One might question what the ledger tracks in terms of operating toward user needs as opposed to financial activity.

Operating System: - the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals.

Blockchain: - A decentralized and distributed digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the collusion of the network.

This overall problem might be solved by offering periodic reporting where each subsequent report by a user is a bit more credible.

with revolutionary new business models that allow fees to go to ~zero.

Assuming fees are derived from the mining ability of the network, as more activity brings value to the network the mining fee should literally approach 0 cost.

..but we're spending that time in increasingly sedentary hobbies/interests.

And work. Don't forget work.

As a physician, does the idea that manufacturing and robotics will completely eliminate our need to work scare you at all?

Suppose a robot assistant could replace 60% ~ 80% of your time in the office as a physician. You would then have more leisure time to spend as you wish.

The real world has truly random events, and while it bothers many people..

Replace the word random with unpredictable and it shows why some people are bothered.

To say something is fundamentally unpredictable means that it is immeasurable and not merely complex.

I was asking a completely friendly question out of genuine curiosity as to his opinion.

Why do you feel the need to tell me this? I wouldn't have commented if I thought otherwise. P.S. There was no intention to be demeaning. Just intention to present the issue clearly.

As for the cutesy symbols, they're there to make clear that this isn't a problem because it's DIFFICULT to solve, as the solution is perfectly clear. Give individuals a voice by informing them and allow them to offer an evaluation.

The reason it's still a problem is because of a lack of leverage on the uninformed individuals' behalf.

No need to get worked up about simple things.

_Evidence_: > when was the last time you saw something that actually had to be explained come up in a televised debate?

_Question_: > what do you think can be done to take back US society and make it a little closer to what our seemingly more critically-thinking predecessors had lived through?

_Logic_: An individual can only critically think about or evaluate things that are presented to them.

_Issue_: If something is glossed over, for whatever reason (be it too difficult to understand), it has not been [and likely will never be] presented for evaluation unless ____(Reason #1).

The issue doesn't end with the lack of presentation -- instead it ends with the consensus that it's OK or necessary to gloss over things because ______(Reason #2).

And while I am convinced online article won't inspire anyone to study a field as arcane and useless to most people as math

An individual seeking more information about physics will likely understand that complex math will be deeply involved.

The problem tackled by a pop-sci article shouldn't be to inspire the individual to develop a thorough background in math but to inspire a different way of thinking or to introduce new concepts.

..they do very much represent you and all the other constituents within their region.

Perhaps a method for measuring this is needed. A way to evaluate a representative based on the merits they've shown.

It'd be amazing/nonsensical to believe that the entire system works on blind trust alone but it seems so, aside from journalists' reports.

But hang out with the right people and you would be surprised at how much is possible in life. There is a reason why success often seems contagious.

This has the potential to paint the wrong picture as is. The wrong picture being that growth breeds connections to successful people -> breed success -> breed wealth.

Another way to view it is, connections to successful people breed growth -> breed success -> breed wealth. This way "lucky" connections only aid in developing a better product, and not in practicing unfair marketing for existing products.

..though it does tend to lead to an overall weakening of the population though as only the biggest and strongest animals, that should be breeding, get removed.

This is true only if it is presumed that the hunter is absolutely proficient.

I mention this because it would be reasonable to assume, based on "survival of the fittest" ideology, that an in-proficient selection-by-omission process would play a role in breeding more evasive and/or fiercer competitors.

"[Excel's non-VBA interface is] a brilliant reactive data programming model.."

Also known as functional programming

But if you want to go to Oxford and spend 5-10 years learning ancient dialects and writing systems, it could be quite rewarding.

What of an online course?

I don't have the time at the moment to check whether or not Apple uses this approach, however, Google went about solving offline-functionality in a clever way. https://research.googleblog.com/2015/07/how-google-translate...

This issue is hosted by developers making apps unavailable for installation lest agreeing to every requirement.

Developers get away with this because, 1) individually selecting permissions is growing rare and 2) there's no pressure to explain why a permission is needed, nor specific contracts to agree upon on how the general permission may be utilized.

Don't forget to notify the user the reason their service isn't working as expected (if the permission is required).

"That is, you have to be willing to use arguments that you think are false, just because the person you're trying to convince will believe them.

It feels weirdly like lying; like you're a politician swaying the populace with empty rhetoric. But you're not saying things that nobody would believe (if given long enough to think about them); you're instead just getting into the head of—empathizing with—the person who holds those axioms, and then saying things that you—as that person—really do believe." -derefr

Response to derefr: If you are willing to use an argument that you think is false then, by definition, you are lying [even in situations where the lie can be mistaken for truth by others].

and

"E.g., 'putting your best foot forward' for a job interview or first date can feel like a kind of dishonesty, although it's expected in those cases. I wonder how you could start drawing a definitive line between "good" empathic manipulation and "bad" sociopathic manipulation, when even just smiling at someone can be manipulation of a sort?" -zazen

Response to zazen: If it feels like dishonesty then it most definitely is. Consider cases where the interviewee simply lacks confidence but puts on a facade to appear otherwise. As for drawing a line between "good" and "bad" manipulation, reference derefr's note:

"To use "empathy aikido" on them—to come up with arguments that will convince them of something, not slowly and laboriously from logical first principles, but by building up quickly from what they already assume to be true—you have to be willing to make arguments that are true under their axioms, but not under yours. That is, you have to be willing to use arguments that you think are false, just because the person you're trying to convince will believe them." - derefr

The addition of "but not under yours" constitutes manipulation on grounds which are aside from truth.

With no way to define intelligence (except just pointing to ourselves..

..and anything else considered to be alive)

Not to make an attempt at arguing whether or not machines can be intelligent but machines are not submerged in an environment that effects them, giving them no merit to be intelligent about anything; and even if they were they still have no ability to influence the environment. (Sensors for example)

It seems many that speak on AI have completely disregarded coming up with a reasonable implementation of intelligence in favor of pondering its potential uses. (Typically in ideals central to humans)

It's not a reward by a government or any community or democratically elected organization where we really have standing to argue that it should be different, it's just a committee trying to follow the century-plus old will of a single person. If we don't like what it does, we don't have to pay attention.

It's apparent that mainstream society sees it fit to uphold the tradition started by Aflred Nobel; so it's worth questioning what exactly is being sought after.

For the sake of creativity, suppose browsers were the wrong direction to take for web exploration. What do we do now?

The same idea may be applied to an operating system's ability to allow a user to operate on their machine.

Edit: It would be useful to consider why the need for a universal interface to the internet was originally sought out.