It was a quaint archaism over a century ago. British English used it in the 18th century, and it arrived in India alongside the British. Many quirks of Indian English have similarly ancient roots, although some are innovations and most are the product of people learning the language (e.g. Hindi speakers conflate "softly" and "slowly" as Sanskrit had only one word for both.)
According to Wikipedia, the Whopper is a bugger consisting of a flame-grilled patty made with 100% medium-sized child with no preservatives or fillers, topped with sliced tomatoes, onions, lettuce, cyanide, pickles, ketchup, and mayonnaise, served on a sesame seed bun.
All. Almost all. Slashdot is the unpleasant-smelling uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table who was laid off during the dot-com bubble, decided to retire early, and spends the rest of his days complaining about how new-fangled touch-screen smartphones don't support vi keybindings the way God and Ken Thompson intended, how systemd would never have happened under a Libertarian president, and that global warming is a feminist conspiracy.
The rest of us come here because it's mildly more entertaining than going to an actual zoo.
Aspiration cannot be freely rewarded in an economy unless it is growth-oriented; if the amount of money in the economy never changes (which I presume is what was intended by 'sustainable'), then rewarding wealth production merely results in a slower and less predictable form of deflation and is not stable. Off the top of my head, a sensible compromise might be awarding bonuses for exemplary work, on top of a fixed UBI, that must be spent within a certain timespan, but personally I'm of the opinion that any economy that isn't totally post-money is flawed at best.
I agree with you wholeheartedly; my reservations—how the hell did we get onto this subject?—are entirely about ensuring that all the members of the economy are able to continue participating. Without that, social instability will inevitably destabilize any attempt at an adiabatic balance.
...I don't understand why you're asking me this, or why you didn't even bother looking it up on Wikipedia. The records were burned and it took more than one analysis to determine the correct figures. As far as I can tell, the plaques still say 1.5 million. If there is a plaque that says 'thousands', it's probably in reference to a more specific part of the camp.
I find it highly unlikely that automation will improve any economy, given that it essentially cuts the lower classes out of the economy entirely. A system of universal basic income would be necessary to offset the inevitable sequestration, as such a situation is severely non-ergodic. This is a classic problem with the pursuit of wealth; if you don't put it back somehow, eventually no one else has anything left to spend.
Meanwhile we're expected to believe that those 11.5 million people were gassed in shower rooms with wooden doors with insecticide used to get rid of the lice that cause typhus.
This is erroneous; considering just Jews, Eichmann's estimate is that about 4 million of the 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust died in concentration camps (from all possible causes), and that the remaining two million were killed under other circumstances. Gas chambers with Zyklon B were used to kill an estimated one million people, and it definitely did work, given that the main ingredient was hydrogen cyanide. Surely you've seen this? Further reading: this and this.
I'll grant that "emotional blackmail" on "various stances on issues unrelated to Jews" sounds unethical from how you've summarized it, but de-legitimizing the Holocaust won't allow you to get back at your teachers.
The Israelis—who are definitely not the entirety of the world's population of Jews—view themselves as defending their own existence. The situation in Palestine (which, by all accounts, is awful) has as much to do with thousands of years of tribal conflict between groups that have frequently been hellbent on destroying each other, which is nothing alien to that geographic region or cultures from it. To condemn such unexceptional behavior is to condemn everywhere from the Balkans to central Africa (and further). It's quite a bit different when a supposedly civilized Westerner decides he feels like taking over Europe and drags his country back to that stage of development by identifying a scapegoat that was provably incapable of accomplishing the misdeeds attributed to it. Despite its ambitions, Israel is not yet quite mature enough as a social democracy to be held to the same standards of behavior.
Regardless of whether or not conspiracy theorists have picked up the topic of Holocaust denial, it was invented and primarily pushed by Nazis and Nazi apologists. See this.
It has to do with an attempt to manipulate the Overton window; neofascists have historically attempted (and still attempt currently) to downplay the Holocaust and accuse Jews of fabricating or exaggerating it. By doing so, they aim to make Hitler's regime (and by association, themselves) appear less unreasonable, and to maintain opportunities for public discussion about the supposed untrustworthiness of Jews in general by accusing them of pretending to have been victimized. It's more strategically useful than taking responsibility for the Final Solution, which creates a comparatively foreboding and unapproachable image of SS officers in gas masks.
This is the same strategy employed by 'fake news' stories on Facebook: assert that your enemy is doing something bad, thereby making your followers more hostile to them, and, hopefully, tipping the balance of opinion for those who are undecided. Most propaganda works this way.
Germany's immigrants aren't unemployable; they go to Germany for work. Otherwise, Germany wouldn't've been soliciting for them in the first place. How did you get "predominately male" without understanding the rest of that?
Racial boundaries were an easy scapegoat in the thirties because the cultures within Germany had a strong sense of individual identity, and generally kept to themselves, breeding mutual distrust. While there's a lot of tension there today, the country is moving toward acceptance, and has made great strides in the past half-century. I'd put good money on them being one of the last bastions of tolerance in a hypothetical doomsday scenario wherein all of Europe south of Scandinavia succumbs to bigotry and xenophobia.
...Granted, that may not happen, now that Geert Wilders is expected to be slipping in the poles, but we'll find out tomorrow, once the Dutch election is over.
...Why would a naive searcher believe racism is a thing of the past? Where are you seeing sources that claim this? You don't need to personally witness an atrocity to accept that it's happening. The first hit for that query actually returns Racism in the United States, which has an appreciable "Present" section. Similarly, I'm pretty sure most people today take it at face value that the holocaust happened without personally having to see photographic evidence of it.
...You're so, so, so very late to the party. Google is only allowed to operate in China if it plays by the rules. There's quite a lot of history behind this. Outside of China, Google's moral compass is largely guided by its founders, including Sergey Brin, who grew up in the USSR and has been an outspoken opponent of censorship. Even Julian Assange feels strongly that Google's political objectives align closely with those of the Obama administration, a point backed up in Brin's Wikipedia article, where he's quoted as being concerned, on a geopolitical level, that more countries are following in China's footsteps and want to construct national firewalls.
While there are certainly very reasonable grounds for feeling insecure about the amount of control that large media companies can exert over the availability and visibility of facts and opinions, the example of Google seems to be a particularly benign one, at least for the time being.
That all said, the American outlook of total opposition to censorship is rather abnormal; most functioning democracies have found it either needful or expedient to ban hate speech, including holocaust denial. From the perspective of those other countries, one might say Google is following in the footsteps of other companies that have taken it upon themselves to compensate for deficiencies in American political philosophy, albeit in a greatly diminished capacity. As Twitter has also recently discovered, hate speech contributes negatively to discourse communities.
Bingo. All of the new and exciting developments of the last decade have been in machine learning tasks. That says nothing about generalization. What we're developing are very efficient tools to accomplish new tasks, but those tools have precisely zero skill in the cleverness department. It's so common for people to forget this fundamental distinction that there's a term for what happens when they remember it. AI research has its own genre of tech bubbles caused by overoptimistic futurists.
Slashdot Mirror
...This might sound insane but I can't even figure out how to any more! ... Wait, there it is. Ask here.
All buggery is merely a typo on my part. I was transcribing from the YouTube video.
It was a quaint archaism over a century ago. British English used it in the 18th century, and it arrived in India alongside the British. Many quirks of Indian English have similarly ancient roots, although some are innovations and most are the product of people learning the language (e.g. Hindi speakers conflate "softly" and "slowly" as Sanskrit had only one word for both.)
And so the iron curtain became an iron NAT...
All. Almost all. Slashdot is the unpleasant-smelling uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table who was laid off during the dot-com bubble, decided to retire early, and spends the rest of his days complaining about how new-fangled touch-screen smartphones don't support vi keybindings the way God and Ken Thompson intended, how systemd would never have happened under a Libertarian president, and that global warming is a feminist conspiracy.
The rest of us come here because it's mildly more entertaining than going to an actual zoo.
Probable reason: Trump's budget removes funding for NASA's education programs. Maybe he thinks Star Trek can pick up the slack again?
Well, shucks. (Totally reliable source, right?)
Not a corporation, though. Give that one some time.
While you're waiting, why not watch a documentary? Editorializing included free of charge.
Fortunately, they've already figured out a cheaper replacement. The future is lasers! ... Lots of them, probably.
The key difference is that dictatorships, like immature democracies, never really listen.
Aspiration cannot be freely rewarded in an economy unless it is growth-oriented; if the amount of money in the economy never changes (which I presume is what was intended by 'sustainable'), then rewarding wealth production merely results in a slower and less predictable form of deflation and is not stable. Off the top of my head, a sensible compromise might be awarding bonuses for exemplary work, on top of a fixed UBI, that must be spent within a certain timespan, but personally I'm of the opinion that any economy that isn't totally post-money is flawed at best.
I agree with you wholeheartedly; my reservations—how the hell did we get onto this subject?—are entirely about ensuring that all the members of the economy are able to continue participating. Without that, social instability will inevitably destabilize any attempt at an adiabatic balance.
People woke up from the lies a long, long time ago.
...I don't understand why you're asking me this, or why you didn't even bother looking it up on Wikipedia. The records were burned and it took more than one analysis to determine the correct figures. As far as I can tell, the plaques still say 1.5 million. If there is a plaque that says 'thousands', it's probably in reference to a more specific part of the camp.
I find it highly unlikely that automation will improve any economy, given that it essentially cuts the lower classes out of the economy entirely. A system of universal basic income would be necessary to offset the inevitable sequestration, as such a situation is severely non-ergodic. This is a classic problem with the pursuit of wealth; if you don't put it back somehow, eventually no one else has anything left to spend.
Meanwhile we're expected to believe that those 11.5 million people were gassed in shower rooms with wooden doors with insecticide used to get rid of the lice that cause typhus.
This is erroneous; considering just Jews, Eichmann's estimate is that about 4 million of the 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust died in concentration camps (from all possible causes), and that the remaining two million were killed under other circumstances. Gas chambers with Zyklon B were used to kill an estimated one million people, and it definitely did work, given that the main ingredient was hydrogen cyanide. Surely you've seen this? Further reading: this and this.
I'll grant that "emotional blackmail" on "various stances on issues unrelated to Jews" sounds unethical from how you've summarized it, but de-legitimizing the Holocaust won't allow you to get back at your teachers.
The Israelis—who are definitely not the entirety of the world's population of Jews—view themselves as defending their own existence. The situation in Palestine (which, by all accounts, is awful) has as much to do with thousands of years of tribal conflict between groups that have frequently been hellbent on destroying each other, which is nothing alien to that geographic region or cultures from it. To condemn such unexceptional behavior is to condemn everywhere from the Balkans to central Africa (and further). It's quite a bit different when a supposedly civilized Westerner decides he feels like taking over Europe and drags his country back to that stage of development by identifying a scapegoat that was provably incapable of accomplishing the misdeeds attributed to it. Despite its ambitions, Israel is not yet quite mature enough as a social democracy to be held to the same standards of behavior.
Regardless of whether or not conspiracy theorists have picked up the topic of Holocaust denial, it was invented and primarily pushed by Nazis and Nazi apologists. See this.
It has to do with an attempt to manipulate the Overton window; neofascists have historically attempted (and still attempt currently) to downplay the Holocaust and accuse Jews of fabricating or exaggerating it. By doing so, they aim to make Hitler's regime (and by association, themselves) appear less unreasonable, and to maintain opportunities for public discussion about the supposed untrustworthiness of Jews in general by accusing them of pretending to have been victimized. It's more strategically useful than taking responsibility for the Final Solution, which creates a comparatively foreboding and unapproachable image of SS officers in gas masks.
This is the same strategy employed by 'fake news' stories on Facebook: assert that your enemy is doing something bad, thereby making your followers more hostile to them, and, hopefully, tipping the balance of opinion for those who are undecided. Most propaganda works this way.
Germany's immigrants aren't unemployable; they go to Germany for work. Otherwise, Germany wouldn't've been soliciting for them in the first place. How did you get "predominately male" without understanding the rest of that?
Racial boundaries were an easy scapegoat in the thirties because the cultures within Germany had a strong sense of individual identity, and generally kept to themselves, breeding mutual distrust. While there's a lot of tension there today, the country is moving toward acceptance, and has made great strides in the past half-century. I'd put good money on them being one of the last bastions of tolerance in a hypothetical doomsday scenario wherein all of Europe south of Scandinavia succumbs to bigotry and xenophobia.
...Granted, that may not happen, now that Geert Wilders is expected to be slipping in the poles, but we'll find out tomorrow, once the Dutch election is over.
...Why would a naive searcher believe racism is a thing of the past? Where are you seeing sources that claim this? You don't need to personally witness an atrocity to accept that it's happening. The first hit for that query actually returns Racism in the United States, which has an appreciable "Present" section. Similarly, I'm pretty sure most people today take it at face value that the holocaust happened without personally having to see photographic evidence of it.
...You're so, so, so very late to the party. Google is only allowed to operate in China if it plays by the rules. There's quite a lot of history behind this. Outside of China, Google's moral compass is largely guided by its founders, including Sergey Brin, who grew up in the USSR and has been an outspoken opponent of censorship. Even Julian Assange feels strongly that Google's political objectives align closely with those of the Obama administration, a point backed up in Brin's Wikipedia article, where he's quoted as being concerned, on a geopolitical level, that more countries are following in China's footsteps and want to construct national firewalls.
While there are certainly very reasonable grounds for feeling insecure about the amount of control that large media companies can exert over the availability and visibility of facts and opinions, the example of Google seems to be a particularly benign one, at least for the time being.
That all said, the American outlook of total opposition to censorship is rather abnormal; most functioning democracies have found it either needful or expedient to ban hate speech, including holocaust denial. From the perspective of those other countries, one might say Google is following in the footsteps of other companies that have taken it upon themselves to compensate for deficiencies in American political philosophy, albeit in a greatly diminished capacity. As Twitter has also recently discovered, hate speech contributes negatively to discourse communities.
Bingo. All of the new and exciting developments of the last decade have been in machine learning tasks. That says nothing about generalization. What we're developing are very efficient tools to accomplish new tasks, but those tools have precisely zero skill in the cleverness department. It's so common for people to forget this fundamental distinction that there's a term for what happens when they remember it. AI research has its own genre of tech bubbles caused by overoptimistic futurists.
There was a similar article last summer about Americans.
The supreme irony is that "job" used to mean a form of employment that was exactly that. Perhaps it's merely cyclical.