These points are way off. The first one is talking about science being dead - but it's not dead, there are just a bunch of misallocated resources because the people doing the science aren't the ones directing where it goes, corporations, institutions, etc are - the scientists are no longer the ones with wealth (and relativity/quantum mechanics is likely a huge dead end on the physics side, everything took a U turn when they threw out aether theory in spite of Morely's follow-up experiments proving the aether exists and it just isn't something static enacting drag on everything [duh.]) The second one is about politics from the perspective of someone who wants to control scientists and researchers. The third one is pretty accurate, only it neglects the fact that there really aren't that many smart people - way more people have degrees than should have ever bothered. That last one is about the humanities, which are a hack field regardless.
Sort of, but it's more generally a consequence of a high education standard in the modern world. People didn't evolve to be happy without being able to create to the extent of their ability - if you teach them all about sci/tech/engineering/mathematics and they still have the resource allocation of the common person they will be depressed. Historically people who were well educated had the means to explore the bounds of science, today they only get those means if they want to explore the science of baldness, erections, or something similarly applicable to the bottom line. You can't give someone all the tools to do great things, brainwash them with dreams of doing those great things in media, then deprive them the ability without depression setting in. It's a resource allocation issue.
That alphabet soup can hide the fact that it's forwarding your request through another website that captures all of your browser's javascript-visible data
It doesn't involve throwing away the past century's observations. It's promising because we've hit a dead-end where we can't reconcile GR/SR with quantum mechanics and instead rely on fudge factors like dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc to explain it away without observation. One of the two or both, if not outright wrong, is at least failing to account for the whole picture. When that happens while working on anything else you revert to the last thing without issues and go from there, not keep hacking logical fallacies into it with the hope they balance out. We disgarded aether theory because a single experiment which was interpreted incorrectly, not because any observation refuted it - that makes it an infinitely better choice than SR/GR or QM. Aether theory has yet to contradict a single observation.
Aether theory has never been disproven, quite the contrary. Morley continued aether experiments after the famous failed one, what he showed between the combination of them is that there is an aether and it is the source of inertia (the failed experiment tested for a static aether which we moved through, testing for a drag, his follow-up experiments tested for a dynamic aether which moved with us.) Morley was able to induce motion in the aether and detect it as an observed change in the speed of light, but this was largely ignored due to the popularity of relativity (in spite of being used in the engineering of modern optical gyroscopes, and more recently in the theory behind the initial version of the EM Drive [though indirectly, since the EM Drive was derived from an aetheric interpretation of the function of the optical gyroscope, which has an alternative explanation in standard physics incapable of explaining the EM Drive test results.]) The big problem with the original aether theory interpretation is actually obvious in retrospect: if it induced drag everything would stop (akin to the pre-Newton concept of the universe naturally sucking energy out of everything.) Instead, the aether as the source of inertia also happily explains why light slows down in materials and not in vacuum, without relying on some idiotic non-inductive effect (light spontaneously slowing down in a medium other than vacuum then speeding up outside, without significant scattering in either, is an absolute absurdity in the context of particles so long as conservation of energy exists, but as an inductive effect it is readily explained with a simple rate of induction in both cases.) Similarly, under aether theory the electron isn't an actual particle, but a point at which inertia discharges while photons are the circuit between emission and absorption of longitudinal disturbances of the aether (which when measured appear to be transverse in nature due to the topological effects involved in 3 dimensional space with Buckminster Fuller describing this in terms of a quantum gravity based on the 3 dimensional tetrahedral grid naturally generated by sticking enough self-interacting energy into a volume [aka, by two conjugate inductive forces such as dielectricity and magnetism, which we term electricity when together.]) The particle interpretation is absurd on its face because particles are an emergent effect of the transient levels at which forces balance out at a given time (which itself is more an emergent effect of length-limited Rindler horizons in an infinite multiverse composed of infinite dimensions where matter exists in 3 simply because it's the only number of dimensions in which you can tie a knot, which itself has been proven in a topological context.)
TL;DR: There's a lot of good experiments and observations after Relativity, but Relativity itself was a curve ball that fucked all of physics, Minkowski didn't even believe it was right and that's why he threw it to Einstein to have him publish it (Relativity itself being Minkowski's interpretation of the combined works mostly of Poincare and Lorentz - which itself was based on a misinterpretation brought about by Heaviside when he refactored Maxwell's original 20 equations in quaternion form into 4 in vector calculus form, happily dropping the scalar components deeming them unnecessary in the process simply to make the equations easier to work with. The fact of the matter is the scalar components describe those levels of interactions at which emergent particles come to exist (or rather, the current level at which that happens) and describe a sort of inertial field which extends through different modes into dielectric, magnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational fields - the fact they're everywhere is what makes them scalar but that doesn't mean you can just eliminate them from the equations outside of very specific contexts (though those very specific contexts describe just about everything we have engineered to date with modern physics, save for oddities like the optical gyroscope which was more happenstance it correlated correctly with reality and some of Tesla's work, which was based on aether theory itself.)
That second link is invalid - the 20 equations were the quaternion form (because quaternions are a true fucker to work with, you need them split by dimension) the 8 equations shown were the post-Heaviside refactorings.
Actually, Minkowski was the one who figured out what Relativity was saying, Einstein was his protege and he suggested that Einstein publish it because he didn't think it was right and didn't want to sully his name. There are letters between the two stating as much.
Except for the facts Amazon really doesn't pay taxes, muscled a shitload of businesses into bankruptcy, does use monopolistic practices and things that would tie them up with anti-trust issues if prosecuted for a change, pay their workers like absolute dog shit, AND the stock price fell because of the possibility of them being investigated, not because anyone on Wallstreet gives a shit about any of those things. It it were anyone other than Trump saying it you would be crying for blood - Amazon is as much in the realm of parasitic abusive capitalism as it gets. You seriously need to take a step back and reflect on how your views coincide with his actions instead of mindlessly Trump-bashing like a belligerent two year old mental midget.
You've gotta keep in mind how Relativity came about. Einstein basically plagiarized everything from Minkowski, Lorentz, and Poincare. Lorentz's stuff came largely from Maxwell, but by way of Heaviside. Heaviside changed all of Maxwell's original equations derived from experiment by converting from quaternion to vector calculus form. In the conversion to vector calculus Heaviside dropped all the scalar components from the equations. This means that either A) all those original equations were conceptually wrong at a level so fundamental they could never have been derived, yet still managed to amount to all of physics and modern technology or that B) the original equations were right and everything after them is based on a subset of the actual physics governing the universe (which just took a long time to hit the boundary of what is described and start going "wait a minute, this doesn't look right.") B seems a whole Hell of a lot more likely than A.
Dark matter and dark energy are used as they are the only things that help explain our observations of nature.
"God did it" is just as logically sound (same exact reasoning of theory over observation) and it has less holes. Dark matter/energy are variables we threw into equations to make them mostly fit curves. Not only do the equations still fail to fit the curves, but now we have a bunch of variables with no observable basis in reality that we don't know what they are - chances are the equation itself is in the wrong format, not that there are some random variables sprinkled through it we have no indication actually exist save for the result of the equation we're working backwards from. That said, if it actually doesn't exist somewhere and that somewhere doesn't align with something obvious (galactic center, motion through space, some nearby bodies, etc) then chances are this could be the first proof of dark matter - if it does align with one of those then chances are we can finally eliminate dark matter from the equations and revise them appropriately.
Still use Windows, but don't find it surprising. They've been known to release patches which cripple vital OS functionality (e.g. the XP phase-out) in order to get people to upgrade, in very subversive ways they don't know actually happened most of the time (e.g. making network or local files disappear at random from the file explorer, but not to other programs.) They probably see Spectre/Meltdown as an opportunity to cripple Windows 7 with minor backlash. Windows 7 machines should not be upgraded beyond the first time they announced the end of life (definitely none of the ongoing support patches after they extended the end of life.) You need to keep such machines behind several firewalls and browse safely to use them (with all telemetry and update services shut off.) Do that and it's solid, don't do that and it will keep breaking. Sadly there are still a bunch of things you just can't do on Linux because of people not porting their apps over (especially when you get into high end computing which requires simulating specialty engineering stuff.)
MySpace was one of the first ones Facebook killed. They imported the user base then shut down all the search functionality, thereby crippling the site. It's never recovered since then because the thing about MySpace which made it good was the ability to search by interest, keyword, traits, hobbies, etc - basically all the stuff Facebook collects and sells off about users, but it was all available to users to use unfiltered (e.g. MySpace itself wasn't applying filters to limit anything - be it for subscription promotion like dating sites or for social engineering like Facebook and dating sites.) You could use it to meet people in any category you'd get along with easily, since they changed it it's just useless. They didn't technically close them down, but they effectively did by crippling the functionality.
All of those things can be done without these companies. The companies listed do those things as bait to acquire data. That's like saying there's merit to allowing animals to eat and trappers sticking bait in bear traps are the good guys.
I think the FFA would read if you are going to stab 100 people in the eye with your fork, you must stab them in proportion to each group's representation in the general population. Good luck finding 0.2 Pacific Islanders
If you find a 5-tined fork you could break four of the tines off.
I hate Zuckerberg and think he should be executed for crimes against Humanity (gross invasions of privacy by preying on incompetents to extract data from them about themselves and those they know who avoid the scam,) but he declined a UK summons. He's a colossal shitbag but he's still an American and even the shittiest of Americans is worth more than every non-American combined. Honestly, we should nuke London just for them having the audacity to issue a summons to an American. Fuck their matriarchal island of backwards shit-eating peasants and their incompetent and complacent ruling class as well.
These are data miners, not technologists. They provide little to no net benefit to society, they simply trick idiots into handing them information so they can sell it off to marketing and PR parasites.
Slashdot Mirror
These points are way off. The first one is talking about science being dead - but it's not dead, there are just a bunch of misallocated resources because the people doing the science aren't the ones directing where it goes, corporations, institutions, etc are - the scientists are no longer the ones with wealth (and relativity/quantum mechanics is likely a huge dead end on the physics side, everything took a U turn when they threw out aether theory in spite of Morely's follow-up experiments proving the aether exists and it just isn't something static enacting drag on everything [duh.]) The second one is about politics from the perspective of someone who wants to control scientists and researchers. The third one is pretty accurate, only it neglects the fact that there really aren't that many smart people - way more people have degrees than should have ever bothered. That last one is about the humanities, which are a hack field regardless.
Sort of, but it's more generally a consequence of a high education standard in the modern world. People didn't evolve to be happy without being able to create to the extent of their ability - if you teach them all about sci/tech/engineering/mathematics and they still have the resource allocation of the common person they will be depressed. Historically people who were well educated had the means to explore the bounds of science, today they only get those means if they want to explore the science of baldness, erections, or something similarly applicable to the bottom line. You can't give someone all the tools to do great things, brainwash them with dreams of doing those great things in media, then deprive them the ability without depression setting in. It's a resource allocation issue.
It's not just spyware.
That's all that needs to be said about this.
Even better: Don't use an url shortener service at all. What's the point?
To feed the machine "God" which will slaughter all of Humanity and create an actual Matrix because Google knows brains are cheaper than CPUs.
That alphabet soup can hide the fact that it's forwarding your request through another website that captures all of your browser's javascript-visible data
That's the point.
I feel like they've hurt you in some way... just point to the area on the doll where they touched you
Spoken like a true PR shill. They've hurt and are actively plotting to hurt everyone.
You can't tell who sold your data off or leaked it if you have a dozen apps all collecting it.
It doesn't involve throwing away the past century's observations. It's promising because we've hit a dead-end where we can't reconcile GR/SR with quantum mechanics and instead rely on fudge factors like dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc to explain it away without observation. One of the two or both, if not outright wrong, is at least failing to account for the whole picture. When that happens while working on anything else you revert to the last thing without issues and go from there, not keep hacking logical fallacies into it with the hope they balance out. We disgarded aether theory because a single experiment which was interpreted incorrectly, not because any observation refuted it - that makes it an infinitely better choice than SR/GR or QM. Aether theory has yet to contradict a single observation.
Aether theory has never been disproven, quite the contrary. Morley continued aether experiments after the famous failed one, what he showed between the combination of them is that there is an aether and it is the source of inertia (the failed experiment tested for a static aether which we moved through, testing for a drag, his follow-up experiments tested for a dynamic aether which moved with us.) Morley was able to induce motion in the aether and detect it as an observed change in the speed of light, but this was largely ignored due to the popularity of relativity (in spite of being used in the engineering of modern optical gyroscopes, and more recently in the theory behind the initial version of the EM Drive [though indirectly, since the EM Drive was derived from an aetheric interpretation of the function of the optical gyroscope, which has an alternative explanation in standard physics incapable of explaining the EM Drive test results.]) The big problem with the original aether theory interpretation is actually obvious in retrospect: if it induced drag everything would stop (akin to the pre-Newton concept of the universe naturally sucking energy out of everything.) Instead, the aether as the source of inertia also happily explains why light slows down in materials and not in vacuum, without relying on some idiotic non-inductive effect (light spontaneously slowing down in a medium other than vacuum then speeding up outside, without significant scattering in either, is an absolute absurdity in the context of particles so long as conservation of energy exists, but as an inductive effect it is readily explained with a simple rate of induction in both cases.) Similarly, under aether theory the electron isn't an actual particle, but a point at which inertia discharges while photons are the circuit between emission and absorption of longitudinal disturbances of the aether (which when measured appear to be transverse in nature due to the topological effects involved in 3 dimensional space with Buckminster Fuller describing this in terms of a quantum gravity based on the 3 dimensional tetrahedral grid naturally generated by sticking enough self-interacting energy into a volume [aka, by two conjugate inductive forces such as dielectricity and magnetism, which we term electricity when together.]) The particle interpretation is absurd on its face because particles are an emergent effect of the transient levels at which forces balance out at a given time (which itself is more an emergent effect of length-limited Rindler horizons in an infinite multiverse composed of infinite dimensions where matter exists in 3 simply because it's the only number of dimensions in which you can tie a knot, which itself has been proven in a topological context.)
TL;DR: There's a lot of good experiments and observations after Relativity, but Relativity itself was a curve ball that fucked all of physics, Minkowski didn't even believe it was right and that's why he threw it to Einstein to have him publish it (Relativity itself being Minkowski's interpretation of the combined works mostly of Poincare and Lorentz - which itself was based on a misinterpretation brought about by Heaviside when he refactored Maxwell's original 20 equations in quaternion form into 4 in vector calculus form, happily dropping the scalar components deeming them unnecessary in the process simply to make the equations easier to work with. The fact of the matter is the scalar components describe those levels of interactions at which emergent particles come to exist (or rather, the current level at which that happens) and describe a sort of inertial field which extends through different modes into dielectric, magnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational fields - the fact they're everywhere is what makes them scalar but that doesn't mean you can just eliminate them from the equations outside of very specific contexts (though those very specific contexts describe just about everything we have engineered to date with modern physics, save for oddities like the optical gyroscope which was more happenstance it correlated correctly with reality and some of Tesla's work, which was based on aether theory itself.)
That second link is invalid - the 20 equations were the quaternion form (because quaternions are a true fucker to work with, you need them split by dimension) the 8 equations shown were the post-Heaviside refactorings.
Actually, Minkowski was the one who figured out what Relativity was saying, Einstein was his protege and he suggested that Einstein publish it because he didn't think it was right and didn't want to sully his name. There are letters between the two stating as much.
Dark matter is far from the most promising, it's only presented that way by pop-sci entertainers like Nye, Tyson, and Kaku.
Respect is irrelevant, you idiot.
Except for the facts Amazon really doesn't pay taxes, muscled a shitload of businesses into bankruptcy, does use monopolistic practices and things that would tie them up with anti-trust issues if prosecuted for a change, pay their workers like absolute dog shit, AND the stock price fell because of the possibility of them being investigated, not because anyone on Wallstreet gives a shit about any of those things. It it were anyone other than Trump saying it you would be crying for blood - Amazon is as much in the realm of parasitic abusive capitalism as it gets. You seriously need to take a step back and reflect on how your views coincide with his actions instead of mindlessly Trump-bashing like a belligerent two year old mental midget.
You've gotta keep in mind how Relativity came about. Einstein basically plagiarized everything from Minkowski, Lorentz, and Poincare. Lorentz's stuff came largely from Maxwell, but by way of Heaviside. Heaviside changed all of Maxwell's original equations derived from experiment by converting from quaternion to vector calculus form. In the conversion to vector calculus Heaviside dropped all the scalar components from the equations. This means that either A) all those original equations were conceptually wrong at a level so fundamental they could never have been derived, yet still managed to amount to all of physics and modern technology or that B) the original equations were right and everything after them is based on a subset of the actual physics governing the universe (which just took a long time to hit the boundary of what is described and start going "wait a minute, this doesn't look right.") B seems a whole Hell of a lot more likely than A.
Dark matter and dark energy are used as they are the only things that help explain our observations of nature.
"God did it" is just as logically sound (same exact reasoning of theory over observation) and it has less holes. Dark matter/energy are variables we threw into equations to make them mostly fit curves. Not only do the equations still fail to fit the curves, but now we have a bunch of variables with no observable basis in reality that we don't know what they are - chances are the equation itself is in the wrong format, not that there are some random variables sprinkled through it we have no indication actually exist save for the result of the equation we're working backwards from. That said, if it actually doesn't exist somewhere and that somewhere doesn't align with something obvious (galactic center, motion through space, some nearby bodies, etc) then chances are this could be the first proof of dark matter - if it does align with one of those then chances are we can finally eliminate dark matter from the equations and revise them appropriately.
Still use Windows, but don't find it surprising. They've been known to release patches which cripple vital OS functionality (e.g. the XP phase-out) in order to get people to upgrade, in very subversive ways they don't know actually happened most of the time (e.g. making network or local files disappear at random from the file explorer, but not to other programs.) They probably see Spectre/Meltdown as an opportunity to cripple Windows 7 with minor backlash. Windows 7 machines should not be upgraded beyond the first time they announced the end of life (definitely none of the ongoing support patches after they extended the end of life.) You need to keep such machines behind several firewalls and browse safely to use them (with all telemetry and update services shut off.) Do that and it's solid, don't do that and it will keep breaking. Sadly there are still a bunch of things you just can't do on Linux because of people not porting their apps over (especially when you get into high end computing which requires simulating specialty engineering stuff.)
I remember reading about this on /. about a decade ago.
MySpace was one of the first ones Facebook killed. They imported the user base then shut down all the search functionality, thereby crippling the site. It's never recovered since then because the thing about MySpace which made it good was the ability to search by interest, keyword, traits, hobbies, etc - basically all the stuff Facebook collects and sells off about users, but it was all available to users to use unfiltered (e.g. MySpace itself wasn't applying filters to limit anything - be it for subscription promotion like dating sites or for social engineering like Facebook and dating sites.) You could use it to meet people in any category you'd get along with easily, since they changed it it's just useless. They didn't technically close them down, but they effectively did by crippling the functionality.
Do you know of a financially successful social networking site (similar to Facebook) that isn't supported by selling user data to advertisers?
Nope, Facebook bought them all and closed them down.
All of those things can be done without these companies. The companies listed do those things as bait to acquire data. That's like saying there's merit to allowing animals to eat and trappers sticking bait in bear traps are the good guys.
I think the FFA would read if you are going to stab 100 people in the eye with your fork, you must stab them in proportion to each group's representation in the general population. Good luck finding 0.2 Pacific Islanders
If you find a 5-tined fork you could break four of the tines off.
I hate Zuckerberg and think he should be executed for crimes against Humanity (gross invasions of privacy by preying on incompetents to extract data from them about themselves and those they know who avoid the scam,) but he declined a UK summons. He's a colossal shitbag but he's still an American and even the shittiest of Americans is worth more than every non-American combined. Honestly, we should nuke London just for them having the audacity to issue a summons to an American. Fuck their matriarchal island of backwards shit-eating peasants and their incompetent and complacent ruling class as well.
These are data miners, not technologists. They provide little to no net benefit to society, they simply trick idiots into handing them information so they can sell it off to marketing and PR parasites.