is like 0.1% of it and it mostly serves to support classical engineering
You know why ? Because it is fucking school.
Same is true for English, Science, foreign elective languages, History, "Moral Science" if you have that. In school they can't teach more than 0.1% of any subject.
Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2
So much wrong in that post, I'll just start with this sentence : 1. There is nothing "absolutely sure" in science. It is the currently accepted hypothesis with large amount of support from observational data.
2. Plenty of research happens that doesn't have immediate / practical impacts. Noodle breaking physics is a famous example - Feynman himself was highly interested in it. It has recently been explained well by a physicist.
3. Even if we accept that only practical interest research is done - rising CO2 due to any reason would make it practical to study its impact on plants and therefore human nutrient consumption. It need not be "human produced CO2".
"Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.
Yes, but "Comet hit could lead to water falling downhill" is clickbait. Or at least highly incorrect. See : 1. Climate change is caused (at least helped along) by rising CO2. 2. Nutrient deficiency is caused by rising CO2
But nutrient deficiency is not caused by climate change - at least for this research.
Similarly : 1. Comet hit is caused (at least helped along) by Earth's gravity 2. Water flowing downhill is caused by Earth's gravity
But water flowing downhill is not caused by comet hit - at least not all of it.
No idiot, nobody is saying that there are no accidents. But there are a lot lot lot more non-accidents. People reach their destination successfully, too. Quite often, in fact, you'd be surprised.
So no "problem" that needs to be solved by punishing humans. Like Trump has a lot of Twitter accidents : but he has no "problem" that needs to be solved by restraining him from Twitter. He is enjoying. As long as he is in charge of his Twittering, you can get your Trump Twitter accidents.
Similarly, overall , humans benefit far more from driving than from restraining humans from driving by insurance means. So no "problem". Self-driving cars of course are losing opportunities due to this. But humans are in charge so far : who are greatly the beneficiaries of human driving.
But elections are only supposed to be fair in fair ways, right ? Private life of candidates causes vote sways - but is it fair ? If a candidate has warts on his / her genitals, I am sure it would cause votes to sway if known. Should this information be made public just because someone is running for office ?
If the information were about the political stance of a candidate - e.g. his past deeds which betray his real political stance as opposed to his avowed political position, maybe you can argue it matters.
Although there are 2 aspects of this deed : having a mistress, and paying somebody off using campaign contributions. The second one, purely from a financial perspective, should be illegal. But trial of that part should take place without divulging the fact that the person paid off was a mistress.
Prodigy does not mean perfect - just extraordinary.
Now assuming that the GP meant "perfect logic" in the statement "can't think logically" - which is a reasonable assumption given the context - your statement is going off on a tangent. Existence of prodigies is no evidence for existence of perfectly logical thinking humans.
Einstein, specifically, made logical errors. His contribution, and also his genius was in daring to take Maxwell's equations far beyond what others of his time dared. And subsequent explanation of his thought, too. This does not need just logic, nor would having only logic have enabled him to do that.
It is possible that the "logical prodigies", as you describe them, were more adept at finding their own logical bugs. Or used tools (including ideological constructs) to prevent the bugs from affecting a lot of their conclusions. But there is no evidence that they were immune to many of these : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , or maybe more that are not listed here or have not been discovered yet.
I also don't particularly approve of meddling in other countries elections, and don't want the US government to be doing that.
I love that when the US suddenly discover their morals when confronted with an opponent who can kick their ass. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (as long as they don't really have WMD) are all fair game. The US citizens really approve of killing humans in those fair game countries.
Classic school bully.
Anyway, you suddenly changed your allegation to "espionage" instead of influencing / "got into"/ hacked / altered / misinformation campaign (including on Facebook). So yes, discussion ended some posts ago, though your dodging continues.
You did not answer the important points, and misinterpreted most of the points that you did address. 1. If it is such a big deal, why is zuckerberg not in jail ? 2. If it is so easy to hijack elections, why don't you do it for an country with 1/12th the size of US economy ?
I am not a patriot, but that wouldn't be towards the US anyway.
And no, it's not whataboutism. I just proved that fundamentally there is nothing wrong with propaganda. I even followed with the illegality of foreign propaganda in elections : but addressing that would have forced you to answer why the US is not doing anything to Facebook. We can't have that, can we ? Answering relevant points is so un-American.
But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
No way. "FB" chooses it, and makes it appear to you that you are choosing it.
"FB" can feed different things to different people. "Mainstream media" usually cannot - and if it develops that capability then it is also beginning to become dangerous. Using targeted communication, opinions can be swayed seriously over time if a sustained intelligent campaign is continued. Even if not "swayed" - they would be pushed to extreme ends of their spectrum in "FB"'s quest for your attention.
A concerted and sustained effort to hack the DNC and Hilary Clinton
DNC and Hillary got hacked so voters voted for Trump. Right, makes complete sense.
The successful hacking of various election systems across the country
What do you mean "election systems" ? Voters ? If voters are hackable, it is already game over for the US. Electronic voting machines ? If EVMs being hacked is proven conclusively and elections are not cancelled for those EVMs , again, game over. You are crying over spilt milk in both the cases.
A massive propaganda campaign that included Facebook and a dozen other sites
Republicans and Democrats did not have a massive propaganda campaign ? Pfizer doesn't have ? PETA had a massive one in its own right, last I checked. There is nothing fundamentally wrong about propaganda campaign.
To influence US elections, it is illegal in the US, but I don't see Facebook being fined $ 2.43 billion. Or an attempt thereof. If such is the gravity of the situation, in a lawsuit hungry country, Facebook should be wiped out many times over. So actually this lack of a wrist slap for Facebook is some evidence that there is no gravity of the situation - Americans know that Americans are idiots. On the other hand, it is fun blaming someone.
Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
If they can, the US is a failed state anyway. Then, what is a big deal if they did ?
And if so, the US should hack Russian elections, why don't you , or why didn't you ? If you did, to make Putin the Lord Almighty of Russia again, more power to you.
Or their voters are not idiot enough to get hacked ? And their "election systems" are designed much much better so as to be unhackable by a dozen times bigger economy ? Is there a lesson to be learned by the US other than blaming Russia here ?
That is, the cows eat more plants than we do -- acting as middlemen in the food production process..... Plant foods such as rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables are significantly cheaper than meat products
Cows eat more plants than we do - but different parts of the plants. Most humans eat a very small part of the plants grown for rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables. The cows can eat the rest of it. Cows can eat much rougher plants that humans can't eat any part of. Those rough plants can be grown on much more rough land where none of your rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables grow well.
I am in a similar boat. I don't check frequently where my mutual funds put the money. The industrial scale at which Rei is doing all this propaganda makes it less plausible that the usual human motivations are behind it. Not replying to tough counter questions is also one of his strategies that is more industrial than human.
Tesla is very short on cash at the moment, and a higher stock price (and therefore valuation) makes raising new capital much easier and cheaper
OK, but in this case he is not so confident that Tesla is such a good investment as he is pretending to be, right ? The game of Rei in this case is somewhat like a pyramid scheme : "get in early, hype it, get out in time " .
Truly unconditionally good investment opportunities are not short of cash so as to need their devotees to pitch in for hype help.
If you need performance, you need a desktop. It's simple physics.
It is much much less simple than that.
Different people need different performance for different workloads at different prices. "I have $100 and I need performance", is extremely different from "I have $1000 and I need performance". And even this is an oversimplification - because while I need performance : 1. I might also prefer some mobility, if only for once a week. And I might be ready to pay for it. 2. I might need I/O performance, but not so much single thread CPU integer computation performance. 3. I might need a certain level of performance, but any more is superfluous.
For many of these performance requirements and price points customers are ready to pay - laptops are becoming more and more acceptable. Making your statement "If you need performance, you need a desktop" false - but it has to be stripped of its misleading oversimplification to understand that.
If Tesla is truly such an awesome investment opportunity, you are wasting so much time denying yourself a way to get even richer ? Two possibilities come to mind :
1. If you are "educating" people , and expect a net positive number of people to get "educated" - Tesla price rises and you can't buy it as cheaply any more. Ergo, you waste time to reduce your own profit.
2. If you are making bad arguments and expect people to believe the opposite of what you are saying - you are just like the Tesla Trolls playing reverse psychology.
Is there any possibility in which you end up looking good ?
Hate is difficult to prove. And "banks" are variously defined : in the most general sense any entity lending / borrowing money for fun and profit is a bank. But "big finance" definitely considers cash undesirable. Evidence ?
Look up "the war on cash".
I agree with " big finance" . Yes, the customer eventually pays for cash too, but best payments are those where the payer does not even know he is paying. With data, for example. There are gifts that keep giving. Data on your customers is one such gift a company can give itself.
If a credit rating agency lost the cash of a million customers, it would have been in trouble. But if it loses the data of a million customers, not much impact on profitability, do you notice ?
1. an opaque white or bluish-white liquid secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals, serving for the nourishment of their young.
2. this liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc.
3. any liquid resembling this, as the liquid within a coconut, the juice or sap of certain plants, or various pharmaceutical preparations.
The context is of Google and Facebook , right ? Android is most associated with Google, much more than iOS is associated with Google anyway. And if you mean this for Android - you have a weird definition of "explicitly".
Slashdot Mirror
is like 0.1% of it and it mostly serves to support classical engineering
You know why ? Because it is fucking school.
Same is true for English, Science, foreign elective languages, History, "Moral Science" if you have that. In school they can't teach more than 0.1% of any subject.
It was actually a yes or no question.
Zinc deficiency might increase halitosis : https://www.drstevenlin.com/ba...
Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2
So much wrong in that post, I'll just start with this sentence :
1. There is nothing "absolutely sure" in science. It is the currently accepted hypothesis with large amount of support from observational data.
2. Plenty of research happens that doesn't have immediate / practical impacts. Noodle breaking physics is a famous example - Feynman himself was highly interested in it. It has recently been explained well by a physicist.
3. Even if we accept that only practical interest research is done - rising CO2 due to any reason would make it practical to study its impact on plants and therefore human nutrient consumption. It need not be "human produced CO2".
"Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.
Yes, but "Comet hit could lead to water falling downhill" is clickbait. Or at least highly incorrect. See :
1. Climate change is caused (at least helped along) by rising CO2.
2. Nutrient deficiency is caused by rising CO2
But nutrient deficiency is not caused by climate change - at least for this research.
Similarly :
1. Comet hit is caused (at least helped along) by Earth's gravity
2. Water flowing downhill is caused by Earth's gravity
But water flowing downhill is not caused by comet hit - at least not all of it.
How much are the algorithms earning from dividends/selling shares in insurance companies ?
No idiot, nobody is saying that there are no accidents. But there are a lot lot lot more non-accidents. People reach their destination successfully, too. Quite often, in fact, you'd be surprised.
So no "problem" that needs to be solved by punishing humans. Like Trump has a lot of Twitter accidents : but he has no "problem" that needs to be solved by restraining him from Twitter. He is enjoying. As long as he is in charge of his Twittering, you can get your Trump Twitter accidents.
Similarly, overall , humans benefit far more from driving than from restraining humans from driving by insurance means. So no "problem". Self-driving cars of course are losing opportunities due to this. But humans are in charge so far : who are greatly the beneficiaries of human driving.
Did you count the number of humans that did not end up in a ditch ? Those that reached their destination , albeit taking more time than usual ?
Whose problem ? The humans have no problem in those cities. And humans are in charge of insurance rates, not self-driving-cars.
Why not print to a PDF and store the PDF safely ?
Ah, you were stupid enough to draw false conclusions as you lived your life.
Any evidence that their probability of disease in next 100 years did not rise by at least one in a quadrillion ?
That is obviously bullshit as a single drink every now and then will have zero effect on being more risky or impaired.
Your data is eagerly awaited. Obviously it involves testing millions of diverse humans over a long term ?
But elections are only supposed to be fair in fair ways, right ? Private life of candidates causes vote sways - but is it fair ? If a candidate has warts on his / her genitals, I am sure it would cause votes to sway if known. Should this information be made public just because someone is running for office ?
If the information were about the political stance of a candidate - e.g. his past deeds which betray his real political stance as opposed to his avowed political position, maybe you can argue it matters.
Although there are 2 aspects of this deed : having a mistress, and paying somebody off using campaign contributions. The second one, purely from a financial perspective, should be illegal. But trial of that part should take place without divulging the fact that the person paid off was a mistress.
Prodigy does not mean perfect - just extraordinary.
Now assuming that the GP meant "perfect logic" in the statement "can't think logically" - which is a reasonable assumption given the context - your statement is going off on a tangent. Existence of prodigies is no evidence for existence of perfectly logical thinking humans.
Einstein, specifically, made logical errors. His contribution, and also his genius was in daring to take Maxwell's equations far beyond what others of his time dared. And subsequent explanation of his thought, too. This does not need just logic, nor would having only logic have enabled him to do that.
It is possible that the "logical prodigies", as you describe them, were more adept at finding their own logical bugs. Or used tools (including ideological constructs) to prevent the bugs from affecting a lot of their conclusions. But there is no evidence that they were immune to many of these : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , or maybe more that are not listed here or have not been discovered yet.
I also don't particularly approve of meddling in other countries elections, and don't want the US government to be doing that.
I love that when the US suddenly discover their morals when confronted with an opponent who can kick their ass. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (as long as they don't really have WMD) are all fair game. The US citizens really approve of killing humans in those fair game countries.
Classic school bully.
Anyway, you suddenly changed your allegation to "espionage" instead of influencing / "got into"/ hacked / altered / misinformation campaign (including on Facebook). So yes, discussion ended some posts ago, though your dodging continues.
You did not answer the important points, and misinterpreted most of the points that you did address.
1. If it is such a big deal, why is zuckerberg not in jail ?
2. If it is so easy to hijack elections, why don't you do it for an country with 1/12th the size of US economy ?
I am not a patriot, but that wouldn't be towards the US anyway.
And no, it's not whataboutism. I just proved that fundamentally there is nothing wrong with propaganda. I even followed with the illegality of foreign propaganda in elections : but addressing that would have forced you to answer why the US is not doing anything to Facebook. We can't have that, can we ? Answering relevant points is so un-American.
But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
No way. "FB" chooses it, and makes it appear to you that you are choosing it.
"FB" can feed different things to different people. "Mainstream media" usually cannot - and if it develops that capability then it is also beginning to become dangerous. Using targeted communication, opinions can be swayed seriously over time if a sustained intelligent campaign is continued. Even if not "swayed" - they would be pushed to extreme ends of their spectrum in "FB"'s quest for your attention.
A concerted and sustained effort to hack the DNC and Hilary Clinton
DNC and Hillary got hacked so voters voted for Trump. Right, makes complete sense.
The successful hacking of various election systems across the country
What do you mean "election systems" ? Voters ? If voters are hackable, it is already game over for the US. Electronic voting machines ? If EVMs being hacked is proven conclusively and elections are not cancelled for those EVMs , again, game over. You are crying over spilt milk in both the cases.
A massive propaganda campaign that included Facebook and a dozen other sites
Republicans and Democrats did not have a massive propaganda campaign ? Pfizer doesn't have ? PETA had a massive one in its own right, last I checked. There is nothing fundamentally wrong about propaganda campaign.
To influence US elections, it is illegal in the US, but I don't see Facebook being fined $ 2.43 billion. Or an attempt thereof. If such is the gravity of the situation, in a lawsuit hungry country, Facebook should be wiped out many times over. So actually this lack of a wrist slap for Facebook is some evidence that there is no gravity of the situation - Americans know that Americans are idiots. On the other hand, it is fun blaming someone.
Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
If they can, the US is a failed state anyway. Then, what is a big deal if they did ?
And if so, the US should hack Russian elections, why don't you , or why didn't you ? If you did, to make Putin the Lord Almighty of Russia again, more power to you.
Or their voters are not idiot enough to get hacked ? And their "election systems" are designed much much better so as to be unhackable by a dozen times bigger economy ? Is there a lesson to be learned by the US other than blaming Russia here ?
That is, the cows eat more plants than we do -- acting as middlemen in the food production process. ....
Plant foods such as rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables are significantly cheaper than meat products
Cows eat more plants than we do - but different parts of the plants. Most humans eat a very small part of the plants grown for rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables. The cows can eat the rest of it. Cows can eat much rougher plants that humans can't eat any part of. Those rough plants can be grown on much more rough land where none of your rice, beans, potatoes, leafy greens, grains, and cruciferous vegetables grow well.
I am in a similar boat. I don't check frequently where my mutual funds put the money. The industrial scale at which Rei is doing all this propaganda makes it less plausible that the usual human motivations are behind it. Not replying to tough counter questions is also one of his strategies that is more industrial than human.
Tesla is very short on cash at the moment, and a higher stock price (and therefore valuation) makes raising new capital much easier and cheaper
OK, but in this case he is not so confident that Tesla is such a good investment as he is pretending to be, right ? The game of Rei in this case is somewhat like a pyramid scheme : "get in early, hype it, get out in time " .
Truly unconditionally good investment opportunities are not short of cash so as to need their devotees to pitch in for hype help.
If you need performance, you need a desktop. It's simple physics.
It is much much less simple than that.
Different people need different performance for different workloads at different prices. "I have $100 and I need performance", is extremely different from "I have $1000 and I need performance". And even this is an oversimplification - because while I need performance :
1. I might also prefer some mobility, if only for once a week. And I might be ready to pay for it.
2. I might need I/O performance, but not so much single thread CPU integer computation performance.
3. I might need a certain level of performance, but any more is superfluous.
For many of these performance requirements and price points customers are ready to pay - laptops are becoming more and more acceptable. Making your statement "If you need performance, you need a desktop" false - but it has to be stripped of its misleading oversimplification to understand that.
If Tesla is truly such an awesome investment opportunity, you are wasting so much time denying yourself a way to get even richer ?
Two possibilities come to mind :
1. If you are "educating" people , and expect a net positive number of people to get "educated" - Tesla price rises and you can't buy it as cheaply any more. Ergo, you waste time to reduce your own profit.
2. If you are making bad arguments and expect people to believe the opposite of what you are saying - you are just like the Tesla Trolls playing reverse psychology.
Is there any possibility in which you end up looking good ?
Hate is difficult to prove. And "banks" are variously defined : in the most general sense any entity lending / borrowing money for fun and profit is a bank. But "big finance" definitely considers cash undesirable. Evidence ?
Look up "the war on cash".
I agree with " big finance" . Yes, the customer eventually pays for cash too, but best payments are those where the payer does not even know he is paying. With data, for example. There are gifts that keep giving. Data on your customers is one such gift a company can give itself.
If a credit rating agency lost the cash of a million customers, it would have been in trouble. But if it loses the data of a million customers, not much impact on profitability, do you notice ?
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
noun
1. an opaque white or bluish-white liquid secreted by the mammary glands of female mammals, serving for the nourishment of their young.
2. this liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc.
3. any liquid resembling this, as the liquid within a coconut, the juice or sap of certain plants, or various pharmaceutical preparations.
User must allow that explicitly.
The context is of Google and Facebook , right ? Android is most associated with Google, much more than iOS is associated with Google anyway. And if you mean this for Android - you have a weird definition of "explicitly".