totemizer

In fact the actual point should be that those production houses will never buy this stand because they already have their stands. (this is what MKBHD said anyway).

And to be honest, if I had the money I would buy that stand, I always loved these move-around-stay-in-place gadgets.

suddenly the anti china and anti us propaganda went from one article every two weeks, to three articles every day.

i wonder how many of us really wants to live the rest of our lives in nuclear winter? if we are "lucky".

And you do the first thing this author describes: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

maybe this will then? http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

Wha? I was never into paleo, I think it's stupid, every damn vegetable and animal has changed since, and it's not like we are sure people actually were so much better of back then...

Thanks for noting, I missed this crucial detail completely. :(

No, it means that the people who were compelled to follow a low carbohydrate diet for one reason on another lived shorter. It doesn't tell you anything unless you know why they followed the diet they followed.

I really wish to know why those people were on low carbohydrate diet though. It seems to me that most people don't do that without a good reason.

I still think he should've mentioned the peter principle and hierarchiology

1. in reality, nothing ever is continuous, and those small errors are black swans. 2. PN!=P not because we can't solve it, but because it is impossible to solve, because there are more possible solutions than space we can use to model them. (oversimplified, i know) 3. que?

"open isn't a magic bullet" yeah, but closed is a harmful pattern. Open isn't about everything magically getting better, but when you do close development of something that potentially influences billions of people, it's an invitation for disaster. We do not want open because we like open, we want open because we are afraid of closed.

and just to be clear, the least whatever you are doing in a closed format affects people the least i want it to be open.

That is not what I said. What I said is that math ultimately doesn't need to and doesn't want to deal with reality. The "proofs" they create do not even have to be consistent with each other, you can pick whatever you need...

math resides in the land of abtractions(fantasy land) and actual code has to run on actual physical machines in the real world. In the real world you can't just state an axiom and fix bugs as math people have solved all their problems in the past 150 years.

*with free support in russian :)

I am ok with people questioning anything, the only situation when this is not ok when there is an emergency, and for those situation we should be prepared ahead, so there is no question what we have to do. I see that you agree that the differences are irrelevant. Or how I would say, the effect size is too small to be considered as a factor.

1. however any organization should have a purpose beyond sustaining itself and if it has no such, it should be dismantled immediatelly

2. probably true, but it's definitely more about the circumstances than about the individuals

3. agreed

4. this is as much about diagnosing behaviors as about expressing the said behaviors. my views of how minds work significantly differ from the views that use these diagnoses

5. i don't believe in "talented individuals". rest of this point is fine by me.

6. this whole thing is nonsense to me. sure, what you say is true, but as I said I don't believe in talent. I also don't believe that you need to be competitive to be productive. I don't think a team or an individual has to be competitive in any situation besides competitions, and those are actually quite rare. obviously, if someone believes they are competing when they are not or should not, that can be extremely destructive.

7. the grass is green, the sky is blue, and truisms are truisms. :)

8. sure, but to be empathetic is to express empathy when it's appropriate, which can be learned. some people learn it fast other's maybe never. but most often the reason for this is not because they were born like that, but because the circumstances didn't allow them to learn it.

9. diversity is good in ecosystems because it gives resilience. that's true again, in almost any sufficiently complex situation

10. depends what you mean by "balance" & "in the end". certainly i don't see it being nowhere balanced currently, i know lots of people who are forced into roles based on their gender (sometimes even by their sex) that they can not fulfill and it's just bad for everyone involved.

I don't think we are different enough for us to talk about it how different we are and definitely we are not different enough so we have the society built around these differences as it is right now. Maybe not where you live, and if you are lucky like that, be glad for it. Where I live, women are oppressed actively. They have to spend way more time to be accepted by their peers than men, they have to work way more than men to be accepted as productive. They have less chances to have say in important decisions. etc.

as i wrote it elsewhere already regarding the original "manifesto":

i am curious, if this person is ok with questioning their belief in "traits" that are defined on the level of sex. after all they are the one who says that "some ideas are too sacred to be discussed" and when i bring this up, i often find that the "differences" between the sexes are exactly one of these ideas.

the reactions to this talk are a good example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqR4cw9Amlg

https://clojuredocs.org is not clojure docs? What it is then? Rust docs? Clojure templates? C++ docs? Clojurescript framework? Should be moved to howtofuckwithpeople.org

I could also just make my own hardware and write my own software from scratch. Even better, I could invent new math, new formalism, theoretically I could do all those things.

But you know, I think it's a fucking stupid idea to ask noobs to fix the docs. Not sure who was the first idiot who came up with this, but it completely explains the state of the clojure docs, if it's the beginners who you task with writing it.

Probably not preferable. Async await works on top of promises...

I just leave this here: http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

I am actually suggesting that we end all economic inequality. The only reason I don't argue for "end all inequality" is that it's physically impossible as much as we know it. Economy should be about what is good for everyone, it shouldn't contain anything which can be used to exploit other humans due to their "economic circumstances". The current system does allow it, and as long as you can attach a number to any person to get their value or "worth", there will be no change towards equality, maybe less inequality. Which is not enough because while the possibility is open, it will always fluctuate.

All websites should look the same, but they don't. Sadly. It's all just information in some kind of format. A video as an mp4 or some text as... well text in whatever way your machine stores it, but mixed with a bunch of irrelevant other text.

But then there is "design" and then you get stuff like inconsistent search, inconsistent site layout, you never know where to look, what to look for, you miss things because they are placed somewhere where you are not used to look. It's a mess.

All websites should look the same.

Let me FTFY: The web sucks.

Generally speaking I agree with you. However when you get to the "someone like the US steps in", I would like to make a few notes. 1. there is no other nation "like the US" but USA. Not even China or Russia have the kind of global presence and military power. Not saying that the US would be able to win a war against these nations, just pointing out that how you phrased it like the US taking steps is like any other nations taking steps, and this is simply not true. 2. Another issue with the US stepping in, is that from experience when the US steps in, that doesn't end well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

and of course, https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=315&v=0ypIwK6OlFc

I do not in any circumstances blame any leader personally for these things, and I definitely do not associate the actions of the US with the citizens of the US, and I also know that even if the US would've been the most peaceful, least aggressive superpower, some other nation might've done worse things. But I think that the world would be a much better place if the US would've "stepped in" in different ways, or even if they would've not done anything of what in the links are mentioned. (and of course I only scratched the surface here)

I am sure in the history there were some slaves which were inefficient, and I wouldn't say that it was their fault. I think a lot of decisions are made without asking the developers. Those decisions then impose situations when planning for more than 3 months is meaningless, so we tend not to. And there we are quite inefficient, especially from an external point of view. Don't take offense where there is none.

Oh yeah, that's the spirit. Who cares about more than half a million people?! I mean, Wyoming has less than that, just ignore them too! There are like three dozen of cities with population larger than that, so anyone who has less, should just be ignored too, who cares about their problems. I love you people with all your ignorant relativism, but if you were one of those, I am fairly sure that the likelihood of you changing your views is quite high. Maybe not "99.8%", but high.

I agree with you completely. However when they argue why AI are a threat, they do come with arguments which basically boil down to anthropomorphizing them.

I am convinced, that intelligence, as life is a gradient. I do not think that an AI with super-human intelligence would be necessarily kind to us, but I do think that even if we would be perceived by it as an obstacle for reaching its own goals, that does not mean that the only solution it would find is to eradicate us. What some people (Tusk, Gates) do not like about AI is that they do not want anything more powerful than themselves, that would take the level of control they have from them. And that's why they are preaching against it everywhere.

Because biological machines - living organisms - are much more like a wave. Machines created by humans do not usually rely on constant chemical processes to maintain their functions. So, machines are more like an appendage on humans.

As does Tusk. I am conviced they realized that once a smarter-than-human A.I. will exist, one of the first things it will do is to ridicule our completely idiotic ways to use our resources - one thing which will probably not gain too much support from the 1%. Of course it's a threat!

privacy is a myth