Indeed. Even those videos that could be fake but we believe are real are hardly ever useful in general. What is useful is what helps you conduct your day to day life better and I can't remember when was the last time I saw a video -- other than someone giving a presentation or instructions -- where it was useful in that sense.
Statistically speaking, this is true. But look at it psychologically: each one of those 78,000 people is not only a unique individual with their own hopes and dreams and sufferings, which ultimately determines their vote -- a vote is always a hope for a better future -- but also they were hard set on one candidate and not the other, Trump in this case. Very few if anyone were on the edge: almost certainly whoever voted for Trump hated Hillary and the other way round. So then consider having a population nearing that of a small town with people very much emotionally invested in their vote. It would take a hell lot to change their minds and there was simply no room for it.
A better statistic might be how many people would have needed to stay home in disgust for Hillary to win, I'm guessing close to double that. But likewise all has been done to at least keep the disgusted voters at home so it would have been difficult to have kept those who did cast their vote in a hope for a better future from not doing so.
I don't disagree with you about Trump's specific transgressions you listed. But since you kindly asked why I support him, here's my explanation: in a nutshell, I consider his enemies -- the media, most Democrats, and many leftists -- to be far worse than him, because they almost without exception try to suppress the opposing opinion with irrational shouts of racist/sexist/traitor.
Now you may think that having what you see is a racist or sexist leadership is the worst thing that can befall a country but I would disagree: worse than that, and indeed the worst, is the climate of not being able to speak freely. The reason for this is that free speech -- not just the one where the law guarantees the state cannot arrest you for speaking but also between participants in political life -- is not just a principle; it is the fundamental mechanism by which we identify problems in the society, come to solutions and find consensus. Remove the ability to speak freely and your problems will eventually become so large your society will collapse. Just look at any of the former communist countries for an example.
I would assume you will agree that what happened in 2016, and is in fact still happening as the beginning of this thread shows, "anyone that attempted to explain why they might vote for him were comfortably, and immediately be shouted down and dismissed as a sexist, or racist, or ableist." I will assume also that you'll agree such behavior is suppression of ability to speak freely. And I think you will agree that almost *all* of it happened from the left, towards the right: the right had a bunch of stupid names for the left like libtards, but it's not against the low to be a "retard". Whereas to be a racist or sexist or any other toxic label the left likes to use means if the label sticks you can easily get in trouble in a left leaning town or state, whether from your Trump-hating boss or from an Antifa member or just someone generally Trump-deranged in the street.
As for my claim that the left is being irrational, take Kathy Griffin with her Trump's severed head. That's among the more extreme examples, but there are very many. You can say that Trump is irrational too, and I wouldn't disagree, but he's moving towards his goal, where Kathy Griffin and others wishing Trump to die and so on on twitter effectively ruined themselves.
There are many nuances, such as the moving goalposts of what is racism (traditional definition is seeing people not like you as subhuman; it is not giving Black Panther a bad review), the open-border policy of the left that I consider harmful, the very fact that they could prop up someone like Hillary Clinton and not say Joe Biden, identity politics, arrogance and smugness on the part of the media/hollywood elite and so on. But this is all second to what I see as the left's attempt to control what you say and what you think.
I thought it was assumed, but I'll say: I believed Clinton would have been the most harmful president this country would have ever had. As for Trump, remember he's under a constant assault from the Trump-deranged media who want him to fail and get ill and die, as someone said. He could be more functional, and there's room for improvement, but for the moment things are not terrible. Some aspects of his presidency I'm not happy about (mostly environment related), some I'm quite pleased with (business conditions and optimism, foreign policy). I'd like to see more done on the infrastructure. But all in all I couldn't be happier that Trump won and not Hillary.
> On the other hand, I feel quite comfortable saying things like "hate-filled bigots" about the ones who continue to positively support him.
Then you're making the same mistake I assumed you did before the election. Politico reports on Feb 14 that 47% of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as President. I don't know if that fits your definition of "positively supporting" but that's still an awful lot of hate filled bigots -- undetected prior to Nov 2016, remember that. To me it also seems you are implying *I* am a hate filled bigot, without having anything to base it on, except for belief that bigots are those who support Trump because Trump is supported by bigots.
It amazes me that intelligent people like yourself cannot spot holes in their reasoning. Is there any point at which you will look at the data, agree that they are consistently telling you one thing, then look at your sense of "knowing" the situation, realize it is consistently at odds with the conclusion from the data, and then suspect that maybe your sense of knowing is somehow broken when it comes to Trump?
Paranoid people, to use an extreme analogy, can only heal if they accept they cannot rely on their sense of knowing about being persecuted. That sense of knowing can always override any conclusion from the data. A deeper, calmer approach is necessary.
A milder analogy is someone who always "knows" the person they've started dating is the right for them (or isn't right for them), only to inevitably end it in a matter of weeks or months.
Let me lend some identity to your anonymous post because that is exactly my sentiment.
As a person on the left said, criticizing his wing, "Similarly, during the presidential campaign, the internet was saturated by multiple, widely shared think pieces focusing on Trump’s misogyny. Anyone that attempted to explain why they might vote for him were comfortably, and immediately be shouted down and dismissed as a sexist, or racist, or ableist. And vote for him they did: 63 million hate-filled bigots apparently, their seething Nazism hitherto undetected. Odd that."
I'll just let Dave Barry illustrate for me the bias in the press via his 2016 Year in Review, the month of November:
"Trump’s victory stuns the nation. Not since the darkest days of the Civil War have so many Americans unfriended each other on Facebook. Some even take the extreme step of writing “open letters.” Angry, traumatized protesters cry, march, shout, smash windows, set fires —and that’s just the New York Times editorial board."
Once I thought Fox was pretty bad, in the last 2+ years CNN, NYT, WaPo et al have pushed me to Fox. At least they are fun and have more attractive anchors. I still do check google news headlines though to see what the left press is talking about.
During the Bush era, I said that the only difference between liberal (or more like "progressive left") and conservative news people is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes. Never been more true than today seems to me.
They lost me right there. Which may well mean they don't care about enlightening anyone, WaPo seems to write primarily to rile their base of paying supporters. It's a good business model and it lets them vent their desires for spiteful revenge so how could they resist it.
During the summer I wrote a game in C++11, about 70K lines of code, and one thing I noticed was holy cow how many fewer crashes I had than with the usual non-RAII C/C++98 code. It was less maybe a handful surprising access violations. It could be partly to the VS 2017 IDE, but it can't explain it all. Some things were hard to get right, but they were mostly hard to compile right. And once I got there I was floored by the cleanliness and robustness of it all. Empty destructors, no need for matching closing APIs, relative ease to plug in new functionality. There were a few gotchas, like inadvertently saying auto foo =... instead of const auto& foo =... -- I wish they had two kinds of auto declarations, when you want a copy and when you want a reference -- but overall, I love it.
*And* I already feel resistance to trying out C++14 or C++17, just like I did for C++11. I think we C++ programmers need to learn not to trust our sense of resistance as much, just like you can't trust your gut about a performance of the loop or an STL container until you measure it.
I had no idea. One google search seems to confirm the identity politics approach to defining a language, and I can't think of many more things that would make me distrust a *programming language* more:
"Reading this team announcement was really disappointing and I can only agree with what @skade already said. This needs no be fixed before everyone just gets used to it being a male-only team."
Judgement is whether something is right or wrong, it's prescriptive, what you should do. My observation about money to offset the harm, if true, is merely descriptive, what happens. There is no right or wrong attached to it.
What I'm saying is it is not for us to say whether playing a rough sport is right or wrong. I would prefer people to be alive and healthy and safe, but I also want them to find thrill and sense of purpose in life, rather than being safe and depressed. Those two goals are sometimes mutually exclusive.
I believe we should let all our observations known, and then let the adult players decide for themselves.
Perhaps those with longer careers make more money and use it to offset the harm created by longer playing, longevity-wise.
It's not for us to judge though. I'm sure there are NFL players with great careers who suffered greatly after they stopped playing and still think every second of it was worth it. And there are others who regret they ever stepped on the field. It is for each person to make the call.
Sounds like you were there and privy to things not even Mueller knows about. I imagine he'd be interested in hearing from you so he can resolve the case sooner.
You do, you just don't know it, because the way interpretations are presented as facts to you are coated with a layer of intellectualism to make it easier to swallow them.
How do we know that *you* are not a Russian created misinformation account, pretending to be anti-Russian so we gain your trust only to later start seeding discussions with pro-Russian posts?
I never coded in Swift so just searched for an example and found this, literally the first Swift code block I ever saw:
override func viewWillAppear(_ animated: Bool ) {
super.viewWillAppear( animated )// Create a button which when tapped blah blah
let button = UIButton(type: UIButtonType.system) as UIButton
let xPostion:CGFloat = 50
and so on (along with misspelling for xPosition). This doesn't look to me any different nor any less geeky from most standard programming languages. If anything, the dangling underscore in the func seems more geeky, not less.
People on the left -- if you fall in that group -- often seem to take an opponent's argument to the extreme in order to show how wrong it is. I didn't say anywhere we need to shut down imports. I'm just saying I'm agreeing with temporary increase in tariffs for solar panels in order to give the domestic production a temporary boost.
I can classify solar panels -- as well as say oil, industrial machinery and so on -- as essential because in the case of solar panels we energy in all forms for our basic day to day things. If we have solar panels but not disposable plastic we'll manage.
It would seem to me rather that you are setting up a slippery-slope argument by myself.
I believe that but we have to start somewhere. After domestic manufacturing picks up those same jobs will too. I think all the essentials -- and solar panels are among them -- should be made at home. The only reason to have buy them cheap in China is to ignore the environmental damage that the cheap production makes, but that's to me worse than making them here.
If in doubt, make it locally. Tariffs would likely stimulate local manufacturing, and then if we own the industry we don't have to worry about what China might do -- that's a step towards energy independence. Solar panels aren't going away.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Even those videos that could be fake but we believe are real are hardly ever useful in general. What is useful is what helps you conduct your day to day life better and I can't remember when was the last time I saw a video -- other than someone giving a presentation or instructions -- where it was useful in that sense.
Statistically speaking, this is true. But look at it psychologically: each one of those 78,000 people is not only a unique individual with their own hopes and dreams and sufferings, which ultimately determines their vote -- a vote is always a hope for a better future -- but also they were hard set on one candidate and not the other, Trump in this case. Very few if anyone were on the edge: almost certainly whoever voted for Trump hated Hillary and the other way round. So then consider having a population nearing that of a small town with people very much emotionally invested in their vote. It would take a hell lot to change their minds and there was simply no room for it.
A better statistic might be how many people would have needed to stay home in disgust for Hillary to win, I'm guessing close to double that. But likewise all has been done to at least keep the disgusted voters at home so it would have been difficult to have kept those who did cast their vote in a hope for a better future from not doing so.
I don't disagree with you about Trump's specific transgressions you listed. But since you kindly asked why I support him, here's my explanation: in a nutshell, I consider his enemies -- the media, most Democrats, and many leftists -- to be far worse than him, because they almost without exception try to suppress the opposing opinion with irrational shouts of racist/sexist/traitor.
Now you may think that having what you see is a racist or sexist leadership is the worst thing that can befall a country but I would disagree: worse than that, and indeed the worst, is the climate of not being able to speak freely. The reason for this is that free speech -- not just the one where the law guarantees the state cannot arrest you for speaking but also between participants in political life -- is not just a principle; it is the fundamental mechanism by which we identify problems in the society, come to solutions and find consensus. Remove the ability to speak freely and your problems will eventually become so large your society will collapse. Just look at any of the former communist countries for an example.
I would assume you will agree that what happened in 2016, and is in fact still happening as the beginning of this thread shows, "anyone that attempted to explain why they might vote for him were comfortably, and immediately be shouted down and dismissed as a sexist, or racist, or ableist." I will assume also that you'll agree such behavior is suppression of ability to speak freely. And I think you will agree that almost *all* of it happened from the left, towards the right: the right had a bunch of stupid names for the left like libtards, but it's not against the low to be a "retard". Whereas to be a racist or sexist or any other toxic label the left likes to use means if the label sticks you can easily get in trouble in a left leaning town or state, whether from your Trump-hating boss or from an Antifa member or just someone generally Trump-deranged in the street.
As for my claim that the left is being irrational, take Kathy Griffin with her Trump's severed head. That's among the more extreme examples, but there are very many. You can say that Trump is irrational too, and I wouldn't disagree, but he's moving towards his goal, where Kathy Griffin and others wishing Trump to die and so on on twitter effectively ruined themselves.
There are many nuances, such as the moving goalposts of what is racism (traditional definition is seeing people not like you as subhuman; it is not giving Black Panther a bad review), the open-border policy of the left that I consider harmful, the very fact that they could prop up someone like Hillary Clinton and not say Joe Biden, identity politics, arrogance and smugness on the part of the media/hollywood elite and so on. But this is all second to what I see as the left's attempt to control what you say and what you think.
I thought it was assumed, but I'll say: I believed Clinton would have been the most harmful president this country would have ever had. As for Trump, remember he's under a constant assault from the Trump-deranged media who want him to fail and get ill and die, as someone said. He could be more functional, and there's room for improvement, but for the moment things are not terrible. Some aspects of his presidency I'm not happy about (mostly environment related), some I'm quite pleased with (business conditions and optimism, foreign policy). I'd like to see more done on the infrastructure. But all in all I couldn't be happier that Trump won and not Hillary.
> On the other hand, I feel quite comfortable saying things like "hate-filled bigots" about the ones who continue to positively support him.
Then you're making the same mistake I assumed you did before the election. Politico reports on Feb 14 that 47% of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as President. I don't know if that fits your definition of "positively supporting" but that's still an awful lot of hate filled bigots -- undetected prior to Nov 2016, remember that. To me it also seems you are implying *I* am a hate filled bigot, without having anything to base it on, except for belief that bigots are those who support Trump because Trump is supported by bigots.
It amazes me that intelligent people like yourself cannot spot holes in their reasoning. Is there any point at which you will look at the data, agree that they are consistently telling you one thing, then look at your sense of "knowing" the situation, realize it is consistently at odds with the conclusion from the data, and then suspect that maybe your sense of knowing is somehow broken when it comes to Trump?
Paranoid people, to use an extreme analogy, can only heal if they accept they cannot rely on their sense of knowing about being persecuted. That sense of knowing can always override any conclusion from the data. A deeper, calmer approach is necessary.
A milder analogy is someone who always "knows" the person they've started dating is the right for them (or isn't right for them), only to inevitably end it in a matter of weeks or months.
Let me lend some identity to your anonymous post because that is exactly my sentiment.
As a person on the left said, criticizing his wing, "Similarly, during the presidential campaign, the internet was saturated by multiple, widely shared think pieces focusing on Trump’s misogyny. Anyone that attempted to explain why they might vote for him were comfortably, and immediately be shouted down and dismissed as a sexist, or racist, or ableist. And vote for him they did: 63 million hate-filled bigots apparently, their seething Nazism hitherto undetected. Odd that."
Yes, I use Kinect in nightclubs (custom software) and it sees the faces of all races and all major genders, to quote Dave Barry, equally well.
Agree re the training set, I think if they retrained it on IR faces it would be much more robust since it would not depend on lighting.
Then there is no discrimination. Kinect infrared for example does a great job leveling the playground.
I'll just let Dave Barry illustrate for me the bias in the press via his 2016 Year in Review, the month of November:
"Trump’s victory stuns the nation. Not since the darkest days of the Civil War have so many Americans unfriended each other on Facebook. Some even take the extreme step of writing “open letters.” Angry, traumatized protesters cry, march, shout, smash windows, set fires —and that’s just the New York Times editorial board."
Once I thought Fox was pretty bad, in the last 2+ years CNN, NYT, WaPo et al have pushed me to Fox. At least they are fun and have more attractive anchors. I still do check google news headlines though to see what the left press is talking about.
The whole review thing is a great read btw: http://www.miamiherald.com/liv...
During the Bush era, I said that the only difference between liberal (or more like "progressive left") and conservative news people is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes. Never been more true than today seems to me.
That said, I prefer if someone doesn't pretend.
They lost me right there. Which may well mean they don't care about enlightening anyone, WaPo seems to write primarily to rile their base of paying supporters. It's a good business model and it lets them vent their desires for spiteful revenge so how could they resist it.
I'll wait for another source.
During the summer I wrote a game in C++11, about 70K lines of code, and one thing I noticed was holy cow how many fewer crashes I had than with the usual non-RAII C/C++98 code. It was less maybe a handful surprising access violations. It could be partly to the VS 2017 IDE, but it can't explain it all. Some things were hard to get right, but they were mostly hard to compile right. And once I got there I was floored by the cleanliness and robustness of it all. Empty destructors, no need for matching closing APIs, relative ease to plug in new functionality. There were a few gotchas, like inadvertently saying auto foo = ... instead of const auto& foo = ... -- I wish they had two kinds of auto declarations, when you want a copy and when you want a reference -- but overall, I love it.
*And* I already feel resistance to trying out C++14 or C++17, just like I did for C++11. I think we C++ programmers need to learn not to trust our sense of resistance as much, just like you can't trust your gut about a performance of the loop or an STL container until you measure it.
I had no idea. One google search seems to confirm the identity politics approach to defining a language, and I can't think of many more things that would make me distrust a *programming language* more:
https://internals.rust-lang.or...
"Reading this team announcement was really disappointing and I can only agree with what @skade already said. This needs no be fixed before everyone just gets used to it being a male-only team."
Judgement is whether something is right or wrong, it's prescriptive, what you should do. My observation about money to offset the harm, if true, is merely descriptive, what happens. There is no right or wrong attached to it.
What I'm saying is it is not for us to say whether playing a rough sport is right or wrong. I would prefer people to be alive and healthy and safe, but I also want them to find thrill and sense of purpose in life, rather than being safe and depressed. Those two goals are sometimes mutually exclusive.
I believe we should let all our observations known, and then let the adult players decide for themselves.
Perhaps those with longer careers make more money and use it to offset the harm created by longer playing, longevity-wise.
It's not for us to judge though. I'm sure there are NFL players with great careers who suffered greatly after they stopped playing and still think every second of it was worth it. And there are others who regret they ever stepped on the field. It is for each person to make the call.
Of course they'll do whatever they can do put their prey at ease. ;-)
Sounds like you were there and privy to things not even Mueller knows about. I imagine he'd be interested in hearing from you so he can resolve the case sooner.
> I really wish I lived in their world.
You do, you just don't know it, because the way interpretations are presented as facts to you are coated with a layer of intellectualism to make it easier to swallow them.
How do we know that *you* are not a Russian created misinformation account, pretending to be anti-Russian so we gain your trust only to later start seeding discussions with pro-Russian posts?
> consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in the brain
Interesting theory, can you explain how it is falsifiable?
And there was nothing significant in them anyway -- the Democrats said so themselves.
I never coded in Swift so just searched for an example and found this, literally the first Swift code block I ever saw:
override func viewWillAppear(_ animated: Bool ) { // Create a button which when tapped blah blah
super.viewWillAppear( animated )
let button = UIButton(type: UIButtonType.system) as UIButton
let xPostion:CGFloat = 50
and so on (along with misspelling for xPosition). This doesn't look to me any different nor any less geeky from most standard programming languages. If anything, the dangling underscore in the func seems more geeky, not less.
People on the left -- if you fall in that group -- often seem to take an opponent's argument to the extreme in order to show how wrong it is. I didn't say anywhere we need to shut down imports. I'm just saying I'm agreeing with temporary increase in tariffs for solar panels in order to give the domestic production a temporary boost.
I can classify solar panels -- as well as say oil, industrial machinery and so on -- as essential because in the case of solar panels we energy in all forms for our basic day to day things. If we have solar panels but not disposable plastic we'll manage.
It would seem to me rather that you are setting up a slippery-slope argument by myself.
I believe that but we have to start somewhere. After domestic manufacturing picks up those same jobs will too. I think all the essentials -- and solar panels are among them -- should be made at home. The only reason to have buy them cheap in China is to ignore the environmental damage that the cheap production makes, but that's to me worse than making them here.
If in doubt, make it locally. Tariffs would likely stimulate local manufacturing, and then if we own the industry we don't have to worry about what China might do -- that's a step towards energy independence. Solar panels aren't going away.