Here's one: "Why diversity of opinion is vital". Or a more sensationalist variant: "How the decline in tolerance of opposing viewpoints is killing us and our kittens"
I think the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... covers your topic statements. No previous topic in this discussion? Or at least you didn't reply to it.
I should have included my sig with my submission, eh? Or more likely there's no interest? (I finally did find one reference to "freedom" hidden in an AC comment.)
So here's a more accurate version (also working around the bad fonts and lack of "not equal" in Slashdot):
Having said that, while I could in theory talk about it for some minutes, I'd hate that form of presentation. I'd prefer to ask people what they think it means. If I actually have to explain anything, I'd prefer to use questions...
Several interesting ideas, but only a couple of concrete reactions:
* "How to persuade people to give you money?": I am definitely no expert at this, but I'd like to see a discussion. I see panhandler and charities making money - what desire are they fulfilling in people? I see squeegee boys getting money - what desire are they fulfilling in their "patrons"? I see patent trolls, landlords, pharmaceutical companies, prostitutes, government contractors, lawyers: Why do people give each other money?
I'd like to persuade people to let me give them money for solutions. Tag is CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) for crowd funding with project management and accountability.
* "What is money?": How do we get people to pick up the trash at zero dark thirty in freezing weather, slaughter cattle, lay pavement, build skyscrapers, go to war, with slips of paper?
I think economics is worthless because money is, too. It's the time that really matters. In ekronomics, everything starts with the time. Cleaning up the garbage is in the category of essential work and it deserves to be prioritized and even honored on that basis.
I think we're in a race condition. Will we create our AI successors before we exterminate ourselves? And if so, will they keep any of us in their zoos?
However, I'm pretty sure there are a number of TED talks along these lines.
I think we are in agreement, but rather than repeat my concurrence, I'm just referring you to my longer comment elsewhere in this discussion. Short summary: The Snopes link is misleading.
The piece on Snopes (from the link) is misleading. Nick Hanauer's talk was not "banned", which would presume that TED has some sort of superpower to censor the Internet. It was censored in a more clever and passive way by NOT propagating it on the TED website. It was thrown down the memory hole and the goal was basically to pretend it never existed. You could find it if you searched for it (on places like YouTube), but only IF you FIRST somehow heard that it existed.
In contrast, the discussion on the TED website of WHY his talk was not published on the TED website was censored. That was within the the control of TED. Motives for the censorship were NOT revealed. The "discussion" was quickly closed, and it became the talk that could not be discussed. Maybe the motive didn't involve the money or offending the donors. You can't tell because the discussion of such possibilities was NOT allowed to exist (on TED's website).
I think the truth is along the lines of the related analysis in Winners Take All. The large donors are just buying indulgences for their sins, NOT actually solving the problems they created. The REAL solutions do NOT involve giving more people better opportunities to become like them. Or blaming them or trying to force them.
"Respect for the individual" is a really tough principle. Some individuals are easy to respect, but the principle has to apply to everyone, the peasants and the victims, and even the fools and suckers.
This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever? The best jobs, even?
#PresidentTweety's ONLY concern is surviving past the election of 2020. Trump has NO long-term plans and he would not care AT ALL if the country collapsed into total bankruptcy the day after the election.
I'm not optimistic about America's future. The Democratic Party primary process is quite similar to the GOP's, which in 2016 picked the least qualified and utterly worst candidate out of a large number of them. Now that Trump has proven "YUGE lies work", what's to stop the Democrats from nominating worse-than-Trump under the guise of anti-Trump?
The only good aspect I can see is that Trump is a doddering old fool, so he can't live long enough for Trumpism to devolve all the way into Stalinism. Notwithstanding, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump locked the door on "executive time" and died of a stroke before anyone worked up the courage to check on him. That's how Stalin died in 1953. Any day now for Trump?
I think I partly agree with your comment, but from a sideways perspective. For example, other parts of the discussion on this story have focused on authentication mechanisms, and of course it is the criminals who are most strongly motivated to understand the details in search of the weakest link in the chain, without regards to who made the chain. The legitimate users prefer convenience.
However your comment does not really seem to relate to what I actually wrote. I could construct a relationship, but I'd have to guess at your intentions. Why don't you explain where you think the relevance is?
And ignoring the customers is even worse than victim blaming. However you go even farther down when you start attacking the customers, especially when you are attacking them for having problems that gave you the opportunities to solve those problems.
Must be some kind of troll response.
I think it is a waste of time to attempt to be more clear, but I'll invest a few keystrokes.
If the customer wants to do something that is too dangerous, then you have to explain why it can't be done. Or, even better, you have to figure out a safe way to do it. Legitimate alternatives include finding alternative solutions or finding bypasses to avoid the problem space.
Here is NOT a legitimate solution: Handing the victim a noose in a shrink-wrap package with a EULA that absolves you of all blame or responsibility for anything that happens after the package is opened.
That comment does NOT deserve "insightful" moderation.
It's just cheap-shot victim blaming. The people who are supposed to make things better blaming the victims they failed to help and protect.
Actually I blame Microsoft. One of the main keys to Microsoft's "success" and perhaps the main source of their YUGE profits was their leadership in escaping responsibility for mistakes. Read your EULA. Whatever happens to you, whatever damage you, your company, or your customers suffer, no matter how egregious the phuckup, you will find that Microsoft's "legal" liability is quite precisely limited, and in most cases limited to nothing at all. It didn't have to be that way, and if Microsoft (and other corporate cancers) had been held liable for their their mistakes, you can be certain they would have been more careful. There's a reason they call it moral hazard.
(Microsoft's other key tactic was minimizing direct sales to the suckers... Er victims... Er, I mean end users. The very honorable end users, and it doesn't matter how much they wind up cursing Microsoft after the fact. Just recently I provided some technical advice on some new machines, but I could not persuade them to even consider skimping on one of the Microsoft taxes. They insisted on paying the OS tax and the MS Office tax to boot.)
Not the saddest part. That's the lack of a solution approach. The solution is obvious, but it will never happen.
Imagine cutting Microsoft into competing companies. NOT vertically, but horizontally. Each baby Microsoft would start with a copy of the source code and an equal share of all the corporate resources. Windows and Office would be standards, and the people would actually have the freedom to buy from the baby company that gets most serious about improving the security of the software.
(My delusional implementation strategy would involve a progressive profits tax linked to market share. It is not a penalty for success. Rather the higher tax rate is a penalty for reducing freedom and the lower tax rate (after dividing the company as needed) is a reward for reproducing the good ideas into separate companies.)
As usual, time's up, but I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Basically concurrence, though I think the chronology is a bit confused. At first they didn't know who the customers were, but once they figured out where the money was coming from, of course they started following it. The businesses that don't manage to wrap themselves around the money are the businesses that go away, get crushed, or are bought out.
Not clear which of the new features you're talking about, but I read the description of the future delivery and it appears to be opt-in, so it won't get in the way. However, after checking with Gmail, the feature is not actually where it is supposed to be. I think the description sounds right, so I'm hoping that the upgrade is not fully propagated yet. It's supposed to be a pull-down option off the send button, but I can't find it yet.
My main concern is if it is only absolute time, or if it supports relative times as well.
I thought I sent you an ACK on this? I agree it's a good idea, but it works even better if it's a friend and you know more details. For example, if you know your friend usually opens the email after a cup of coffee, you can schedule your email to arrive at that time.
Another variation I want would be a default reply sending time, basically to slow down the pace of non-urgent email. It's another application of relative time in the future, but with a bigger delay than for the unsend capability.
I'd draft the reply and add the delivery date based on priority. A close friend or family member should get it the next day (unless I change it to urgent for immediate delivery), but for a lot of people I'd just as soon wait a week and think about it. However, to implement this feature properly, you'd also need some kind of tickler or reminder system to let you easily see what pending email you had drafted. In my application, in some cases I'd let the original draft of my reply stand, but as it got close to the sending time, I'd like to check it to see if there is anything else I should add, but still encouraging my reasonably timely response. The objective is less email but of higher quality.
Alternatively, I might push some of the non-urgent email to a period when my schedule is more slack, say for Sunday delivery. Then I would have a chance to review the pending email on Saturday before it goes out.
Should mention the other email options that are at the top of my wish list:
(0) An effective spammer-fighting system to help put the scammers out of business. "Live and let spam" is NOT a solution. The basic principle is that only the potential victims know for sure.
(1) Reject and bounce confidential-mode email. If you don't trust me that much, I do NOT want your email.
(2) Reject no-reply email. If you don't care enough to receive my reply, then I do NOT want your email. And you don't even deserve to know it was never delivered.
As usual, I have to close on grounds of time, but I'll bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Tagging here because I suspect it's an April Fool story...
However, future delivery is something I've been advocating for several years. I'm betting the google mucked it up. Right now that's basically a wager until I see how it works. I know how I want it to work, but the REAL problem is that I'm time-centric and today's google is all about the money.
For example, I want to combine future delivery with the unsend feature by having an option for a default future delivery time. ALL of my email would be delayed a bit, NOT just the 30-second delay of the unsend feature. The best value depends very much on how you think, but I think I would set it for an hour. That's enough time for the ideas to percolate a bit, and if I feel uncomfortable, I would be able to get the email and look at it again before it gets sent. If I want immediate send because it really is urgent, then it would be the same as invoking the future delivery option, but instead of setting it for some date in the future, I would just pick 1 minute from now. Or that could be masked as an "urgent" email option, with one click (or a menu and click) to mark it urgent and to send it immediately.
So when should I go see how the google has bollixed it? Now I've gotten my hopes up again, and today's google is always dashing them.
(Sort of like my recent disappointments with Slashdot, though the solutions are more obvious here because the scopes of the problems are smaller. The difference is that the google has lots of money to play with because some parts of their business model are viable, while Slashdot has become a sort of weird basket case surviving on someone's charity.)
Hmm... Actually I did a lot of work with OS/2 and think there were some good things there. Insofar as I believe that freedom involves meaningful choice, I see it as more of a sad story than a good basis for failure-based humor.
Not joking, but I think freedom AND progress would have been better served if we had pro-freedom taxation that had encouraged Microsoft to reproduce itself into competing corporations with competing OSes. Windows could be a standard without being a monopoly aggressively marketed as a fake choice.
Yes, I know Google Books hasn't gone away completely, but it feels close enough to dead these years... This story and topic has gotten me to thinking about lots of dashed hopes.
The feature Google Books never had (at least as far as I could tell) would have been a virtual bookshelf feature. The idea would be to see the books that are shelved near a particular book, though you'd need to filter it in various ways for practical use. Perhaps the virtual shelf would be limited to books published in the last 20 years by default, but spanning many libraries to give a really broad view of the related literature.
I think it's a major strain to describe Google+ as a clone of Facebook. Not even clear that it was a wannabe clone, though the google did want to get into the game. There were too many differences in the approaches of the two systems.
If Google Plus had actually had some good ideas, then I think similar ideas would have appeared within Facebook. Have I overlooked something? I admit that I don't use Facebook much these days. (My FFF solution really worked much better than I expected in terms of cutting my motivation to look at Facebook.)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one: "Why diversity of opinion is vital". Or a more sensationalist variant: "How the decline in tolerance of opposing viewpoints is killing us and our kittens"
I think the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... covers your topic statements. No previous topic in this discussion? Or at least you didn't reply to it.
I should have included my sig with my submission, eh? Or more likely there's no interest? (I finally did find one reference to "freedom" hidden in an AC comment.)
So here's a more accurate version (also working around the bad fonts and lack of "not equal" in Slashdot):
Freedom #1 = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} <> (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)
Having said that, while I could in theory talk about it for some minutes, I'd hate that form of presentation. I'd prefer to ask people what they think it means. If I actually have to explain anything, I'd prefer to use questions...
Almost invisible as AC comment. If you can't put your name on it, you aren't going to get any substantive reply.
Several interesting ideas, but only a couple of concrete reactions:
* "How to persuade people to give you money?": I am definitely no expert at this, but I'd like to see a discussion. I see panhandler and charities making money - what desire are they fulfilling in people? I see squeegee boys getting money - what desire are they fulfilling in their "patrons"? I see patent trolls, landlords, pharmaceutical companies, prostitutes, government contractors, lawyers: Why do people give each other money?
I'd like to persuade people to let me give them money for solutions. Tag is CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) for crowd funding with project management and accountability.
* "What is money?": How do we get people to pick up the trash at zero dark thirty in freezing weather, slaughter cattle, lay pavement, build skyscrapers, go to war, with slips of paper?
I think economics is worthless because money is, too. It's the time that really matters. In ekronomics, everything starts with the time. Cleaning up the garbage is in the category of essential work and it deserves to be prioritized and even honored on that basis.
Pretty sure I've seen several TED talks along those lines, but I don't have any links close to hand.
The line to give that talk is long. I'm in it, too.
I predict TED is not interested, though you might try to give it at a TEDx and see what happens.
However, I can explain why it's an issue that needs a solution in terms of ekronomics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For context. But is your comment supposed to be a recursive joke?
If not, then obviously the question wasn't directed to you.
I think we're in a race condition. Will we create our AI successors before we exterminate ourselves? And if so, will they keep any of us in their zoos?
However, I'm pretty sure there are a number of TED talks along these lines.
I think we are in agreement, but rather than repeat my concurrence, I'm just referring you to my longer comment elsewhere in this discussion. Short summary: The Snopes link is misleading.
The piece on Snopes (from the link) is misleading. Nick Hanauer's talk was not "banned", which would presume that TED has some sort of superpower to censor the Internet. It was censored in a more clever and passive way by NOT propagating it on the TED website. It was thrown down the memory hole and the goal was basically to pretend it never existed. You could find it if you searched for it (on places like YouTube), but only IF you FIRST somehow heard that it existed.
In contrast, the discussion on the TED website of WHY his talk was not published on the TED website was censored. That was within the the control of TED. Motives for the censorship were NOT revealed. The "discussion" was quickly closed, and it became the talk that could not be discussed. Maybe the motive didn't involve the money or offending the donors. You can't tell because the discussion of such possibilities was NOT allowed to exist (on TED's website).
I think the truth is along the lines of the related analysis in Winners Take All . The large donors are just buying indulgences for their sins, NOT actually solving the problems they created. The REAL solutions do NOT involve giving more people better opportunities to become like them. Or blaming them or trying to force them.
"Respect for the individual" is a really tough principle. Some individuals are easy to respect, but the principle has to apply to everyone, the peasants and the victims, and even the fools and suckers.
Don't say that. Don't even THINK it.
He who shall not be named will just take it as a challenge.
This is strange. Didn't the President of the United States tell us he was creating more jobs than any President ever? The best jobs, even?
#PresidentTweety's ONLY concern is surviving past the election of 2020. Trump has NO long-term plans and he would not care AT ALL if the country collapsed into total bankruptcy the day after the election.
I'm not optimistic about America's future. The Democratic Party primary process is quite similar to the GOP's, which in 2016 picked the least qualified and utterly worst candidate out of a large number of them. Now that Trump has proven "YUGE lies work", what's to stop the Democrats from nominating worse-than-Trump under the guise of anti-Trump?
The only good aspect I can see is that Trump is a doddering old fool, so he can't live long enough for Trumpism to devolve all the way into Stalinism. Notwithstanding, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump locked the door on "executive time" and died of a stroke before anyone worked up the courage to check on him. That's how Stalin died in 1953. Any day now for Trump?
Just venting, but I've already taken cover.
I think I partly agree with your comment, but from a sideways perspective. For example, other parts of the discussion on this story have focused on authentication mechanisms, and of course it is the criminals who are most strongly motivated to understand the details in search of the weakest link in the chain, without regards to who made the chain. The legitimate users prefer convenience.
However your comment does not really seem to relate to what I actually wrote. I could construct a relationship, but I'd have to guess at your intentions. Why don't you explain where you think the relevance is?
And ignoring the customers is even worse than victim blaming. However you go even farther down when you start attacking the customers, especially when you are attacking them for having problems that gave you the opportunities to solve those problems.
Must be some kind of troll response.
I think it is a waste of time to attempt to be more clear, but I'll invest a few keystrokes.
If the customer wants to do something that is too dangerous, then you have to explain why it can't be done. Or, even better, you have to figure out a safe way to do it. Legitimate alternatives include finding alternative solutions or finding bypasses to avoid the problem space.
Here is NOT a legitimate solution: Handing the victim a noose in a shrink-wrap package with a EULA that absolves you of all blame or responsibility for anything that happens after the package is opened.
That comment does NOT deserve "insightful" moderation.
It's just cheap-shot victim blaming. The people who are supposed to make things better blaming the victims they failed to help and protect.
Actually I blame Microsoft. One of the main keys to Microsoft's "success" and perhaps the main source of their YUGE profits was their leadership in escaping responsibility for mistakes. Read your EULA. Whatever happens to you, whatever damage you, your company, or your customers suffer, no matter how egregious the phuckup, you will find that Microsoft's "legal" liability is quite precisely limited, and in most cases limited to nothing at all. It didn't have to be that way, and if Microsoft (and other corporate cancers) had been held liable for their their mistakes, you can be certain they would have been more careful. There's a reason they call it moral hazard.
(Microsoft's other key tactic was minimizing direct sales to the suckers... Er victims... Er, I mean end users. The very honorable end users, and it doesn't matter how much they wind up cursing Microsoft after the fact. Just recently I provided some technical advice on some new machines, but I could not persuade them to even consider skimping on one of the Microsoft taxes. They insisted on paying the OS tax and the MS Office tax to boot.)
Not the saddest part. That's the lack of a solution approach. The solution is obvious, but it will never happen.
Imagine cutting Microsoft into competing companies. NOT vertically, but horizontally. Each baby Microsoft would start with a copy of the source code and an equal share of all the corporate resources. Windows and Office would be standards, and the people would actually have the freedom to buy from the baby company that gets most serious about improving the security of the software.
(My delusional implementation strategy would involve a progressive profits tax linked to market share. It is not a penalty for success. Rather the higher tax rate is a penalty for reducing freedom and the lower tax rate (after dividing the company as needed) is a reward for reproducing the good ideas into separate companies.)
As usual, time's up, but I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Basically concurrence, though I think the chronology is a bit confused. At first they didn't know who the customers were, but once they figured out where the money was coming from, of course they started following it. The businesses that don't manage to wrap themselves around the money are the businesses that go away, get crushed, or are bought out.
Not clear which of the new features you're talking about, but I read the description of the future delivery and it appears to be opt-in, so it won't get in the way. However, after checking with Gmail, the feature is not actually where it is supposed to be. I think the description sounds right, so I'm hoping that the upgrade is not fully propagated yet. It's supposed to be a pull-down option off the send button, but I can't find it yet.
My main concern is if it is only absolute time, or if it supports relative times as well.
I thought I sent you an ACK on this? I agree it's a good idea, but it works even better if it's a friend and you know more details. For example, if you know your friend usually opens the email after a cup of coffee, you can schedule your email to arrive at that time.
Another variation I want would be a default reply sending time, basically to slow down the pace of non-urgent email. It's another application of relative time in the future, but with a bigger delay than for the unsend capability.
I'd draft the reply and add the delivery date based on priority. A close friend or family member should get it the next day (unless I change it to urgent for immediate delivery), but for a lot of people I'd just as soon wait a week and think about it. However, to implement this feature properly, you'd also need some kind of tickler or reminder system to let you easily see what pending email you had drafted. In my application, in some cases I'd let the original draft of my reply stand, but as it got close to the sending time, I'd like to check it to see if there is anything else I should add, but still encouraging my reasonably timely response. The objective is less email but of higher quality.
Alternatively, I might push some of the non-urgent email to a period when my schedule is more slack, say for Sunday delivery. Then I would have a chance to review the pending email on Saturday before it goes out.
Should mention the other email options that are at the top of my wish list:
(0) An effective spammer-fighting system to help put the scammers out of business. "Live and let spam" is NOT a solution. The basic principle is that only the potential victims know for sure.
(1) Reject and bounce confidential-mode email. If you don't trust me that much, I do NOT want your email.
(2) Reject no-reply email. If you don't care enough to receive my reply, then I do NOT want your email. And you don't even deserve to know it was never delivered.
As usual, I have to close on grounds of time, but I'll bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Tagging here because I suspect it's an April Fool story...
However, future delivery is something I've been advocating for several years. I'm betting the google mucked it up. Right now that's basically a wager until I see how it works. I know how I want it to work, but the REAL problem is that I'm time-centric and today's google is all about the money.
For example, I want to combine future delivery with the unsend feature by having an option for a default future delivery time. ALL of my email would be delayed a bit, NOT just the 30-second delay of the unsend feature. The best value depends very much on how you think, but I think I would set it for an hour. That's enough time for the ideas to percolate a bit, and if I feel uncomfortable, I would be able to get the email and look at it again before it gets sent. If I want immediate send because it really is urgent, then it would be the same as invoking the future delivery option, but instead of setting it for some date in the future, I would just pick 1 minute from now. Or that could be masked as an "urgent" email option, with one click (or a menu and click) to mark it urgent and to send it immediately.
So when should I go see how the google has bollixed it? Now I've gotten my hopes up again, and today's google is always dashing them.
(Sort of like my recent disappointments with Slashdot, though the solutions are more obvious here because the scopes of the problems are smaller. The difference is that the google has lots of money to play with because some parts of their business model are viable, while Slashdot has become a sort of weird basket case surviving on someone's charity.)
Hmm... Actually I did a lot of work with OS/2 and think there were some good things there. Insofar as I believe that freedom involves meaningful choice, I see it as more of a sad story than a good basis for failure-based humor.
Not joking, but I think freedom AND progress would have been better served if we had pro-freedom taxation that had encouraged Microsoft to reproduce itself into competing corporations with competing OSes. Windows could be a standard without being a monopoly aggressively marketed as a fake choice.
Yes, I know Google Books hasn't gone away completely, but it feels close enough to dead these years... This story and topic has gotten me to thinking about lots of dashed hopes.
The feature Google Books never had (at least as far as I could tell) would have been a virtual bookshelf feature. The idea would be to see the books that are shelved near a particular book, though you'd need to filter it in various ways for practical use. Perhaps the virtual shelf would be limited to books published in the last 20 years by default, but spanning many libraries to give a really broad view of the related literature.
I don't think I was able to get past the headline before knowing it had to be a joke. A good one has to string you along for a while.
I think it's a major strain to describe Google+ as a clone of Facebook. Not even clear that it was a wannabe clone, though the google did want to get into the game. There were too many differences in the approaches of the two systems.
If Google Plus had actually had some good ideas, then I think similar ideas would have appeared within Facebook. Have I overlooked something? I admit that I don't use Facebook much these days. (My FFF solution really worked much better than I expected in terms of cutting my motivation to look at Facebook.)
I actually looked at the data. Without the structure it becomes almost completely meaningless, even though I created some of it.
Some of the data appeared to be derived information that I couldn't interpret at all. Not even with imaginary numbers.